Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
This text of 149 N.E. 625 (Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, while walking on the "reserved space” in Huntington Avenue in Boston, where there was neither a break nor cross walk, toward a white post with the purpose there to become a passenger of the defendant, was struck by one of the defendant’s cars and injured. When Huntington Avenue was laid out, this space was specially reserved under St. 1894, c. 324, for street railway track location. The case at bar is governed by Crowell v.- Boston Elevated Railway, 234 Mass. 393, where it was held that, under similar circumstances, the traveller was at most' a bare licensee as to the [606]*606defendant, which owed her no duty except to refrain from wanton or reckless conduct. The differences between that case and the present one are immaterial and do not call for the application of a different principle.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
149 N.E. 625, 253 Mass. 605, 1925 Mass. LEXIS 1323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treen-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1925.