White v. West End Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

White v. West End Street Railway Co.

43 N.E. 298, 165 Mass. 522, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 314

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 1, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 N.E. 298 (White v. West End Street 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.

Bluebook

White v. West End Street Railway Co., 43 N.E. 298, 165 Mass. 522, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 314 (Mass. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J.

The plaintiff’s construction of his bill of exceptions is, that the car went without stopping past the place where he expected it to stop, and that he then undertook to get off while the car was in motion. Assuming this to be so, he fully knew the condition of things ; he was aware that the car was'moving ; it was daylight; he stood upon the step of the platform and could see where he was about to step; no unexpected jerk or sudden motion or stopping of the car occurred; he had been in the habit of getting upon and off street cars when they were in motion, and always without injury, and- on this occasion he stepped off as carefully as he could into the gravelled street, and was hurt. The action is for the personal injury. The plaintiff cannot recover for this on his count in contract. If a contract by the conductor to stop "at the expected place, binding upon the defendant, could he proved upon the evidence, (Robinson v. Northampton Street Railway, 157 Mass. 224,) the personal injury was not the natural or proximate consequence of a failure to stop there. Murdock v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 133 Mass. 15. Nor can he recover on his count in tort. He chose to get off while the car was moving, and without making a further effort to stop it. Under the circumstances disclosed, he took the risk of such an accident as happened.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen, J.

The plaintiff’s construction of his bill of exceptions is, that the car went without stopping past the place where he expected it to stop, and that he then undertook to get off while the car was in motion. Assuming this to be so, he fully knew the condition of things ; he was aware that the car was'moving ; it was daylight; he stood upon the step of the platform and could see where he was about to step; no unexpected jerk or sudden motion or stopping of the car occurred; he had been in the habit of getting upon and off street cars when they were in motion, and always without injury, and- on this occasion he stepped off as carefully as he could into the gravelled street, and was hurt. The action is for the personal injury. The plaintiff cannot recover for this on his count in contract. If a contract by the conductor to stop "at the expected place, binding upon the defendant, could he proved upon the evidence, (Robinson v. Northampton Street Railway, 157 Mass. 224,) the personal injury was not the natural or proximate consequence of a failure to stop there. Murdock v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 133 Mass. 15. Nor can he recover on his count in tort. He chose to get off while the car was moving, and without making a further effort to stop it. Under the circumstances disclosed, he took the risk of such an accident as happened.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E. 298, 165 Mass. 522, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-west-end-street-railway-co-mass-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack