Richardson v. Haverhill & Amesbury Street Railway Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort to recover damages for injuries to a large limousine automobile of the plaintiff from being run into on January 14,1910, by a street railway car of the defendant running on a single track on the State highway and main road leading from Amesbury through Merrimac and Haverhill to Boston.
Read the full summary
Tort to recover damages for injuries to a large limousine automobile of the plaintiff from being run into on January 14,1910, by a street railway car of the defendant running on a single track on the State highway and main road leading from Amesbury through Merrimac and Haverhill to Boston. Writ dated April 12, 1910. In the Superior Court the case was tried before McLaughlin, J. At the close of the evidence, which is described in the opinion, the defendant asked the judge to rule that on all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The judge refused to make this ruling, and…
1Opinion of the CourtDeCourcy, J.
The plaintiff’s automobile was struck by an electric car of the defendant at Amesbury on January 14, 1910. There was abundant evidence to justify a finding that the motorman was negligent, and we do not understand that the defendant argues to the contrary. He knew that for some days the snow drifts had compelled drivers of vehicles to travel on the track at the place of the collision, and that they could not turn off on either side; yet it could be found that he ran his car at a speed of thirty miles an hour, with his view obstructed by frost on the *54glass in front of Mm. He did not see the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Nelson v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Davis v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- George G. Fox Co. v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reardon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922