Widmer v. West End Street Railway Co.

32 N.E. 899, 158 Mass. 49, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 227
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 32 N.E. 899 (Widmer 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
Widmer v. West End Street Railway Co., 32 N.E. 899, 158 Mass. 49, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 227 (Mass. 1893).

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

At the trial of this case there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. It was an undisputed fact that the plaintiff was standing near the side of the track, waiting for the car to go by, and she testified that she saw it before it reached her ¿ that she was looking north at some teams, while the car was coming from the south; that she saw the front end of the car go by her, and thought she was far enough from it to be safe, and that she was struck on the right temple by the handle on the rear dasher of the car as it went round the corner. There was no pretence that there was any defect in the car or in its equipments, or in the track, and the plaintiff testified to nothing unusual or improper in the management of the car.

There was no reason why the driver should not drive past her and around the corner, for he had no reason to suppose that she would come so near the rear of the car as to be struck when it went by. The only witnesses who testified besides the plaintiff were two police officers, one of whom was stationed there for the better protection of the public, and he testified that he “ did not stop this car, and had no occasion to ”; that “ the car was not going rapidly, — jogging around the corner at the regular rate as they always go.” The other, in describing the rate of speed of the car at the time of the accident, said “ that the horses started off at a smart walk, and he didn’t think: they were trotting.” There was no evidence of negligence which had any connection with the accident in the facts that there was no switchman stationed there, and that the conductor turned the switch.

The bill of exceptions discloses nothing that the defendant did or neglected to do of which the plaintiff can justly complain.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Chandler v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
117 N.E.2d 823 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
Chandler v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
5 Mass. App. Dec. 145 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1953)
Miller v. Utah Light & Traction Co.
86 P.2d 37 (Utah Supreme Court, 1939)
Diamato v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co.
6 N.E.2d 391 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Zalewski v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
263 N.W. 577 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
Noonan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
160 N.E. 811 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Hoye v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
152 N.E. 738 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Mangan v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
203 N.W. 705 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Weir v. Kansas City Railways Co.
196 P. 442 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1921)
Niles v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
119 N.E. 752 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Mignault v. Rhode Island Company
103 A. 716 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1918)
Wood v. Los Angeles Railway Corporation
155 P. 68 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Osborne v. Bay State Street Railway Co.
111 N.E. 43 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Eckhart v. Marion, Bluffton & Eastern Traction Co.
109 N.E. 224 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Kuhn v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
149 N.W. 220 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Brentlinger v. Louisville Railway Co.
161 S.W. 1107 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Brightman v. Union Street Railway Co.
103 N.E. 379 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Jelly v. North Jersey Street Railway Co.
68 A. 1091 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1908)
Matulewicz v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
107 A.D. 230 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 N.E. 899, 158 Mass. 49, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widmer-v-west-end-street-railway-co-mass-1893.