Case ID: mass_168/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Allen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Celia Rosenberg vs. West End Street Railway Company.
    Suffolk.
    March 26, 1897. —
    June 14, 1897.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowxton, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Personal Injuries occasioned to Minor — Negligence—Due Care.
    
    At the trial of an action against a street railway company for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of being run overby one of the defendant’s cars, evidence that the car was moving very rapidly through a much frequented street of a city; that the gong was not sounded; that the plaintiff, who was nearly nine years of age, with a companion who was of about the same age, before starting to cross the street looked both ways to see if a car was . approaching, and, seeing none, was crossing the street slowly when the defendant’s car came upon, struck, and ran over her, is competent to be considered by the jury on the question of due care of the plaintiff and negligence on the part of the defendant.
    Tort, for .personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, a minor, nearly nine years of age, on June 4, 1893, in consequence of being run over by an electric • car of the defendant on Washington Street, in the city of Boston.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Richardson, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The material facts appear in the opinion.
    
      M. F. Dickinson, Jr. 3. R. Bailey, for the defendant.
    
      O. W. Bartlett, (0. A. Reed R. Levi with him,) for the plaintiff.
   Allen, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the car was moving very fast, some ten or eleven miles an hour, through a much frequented street in the city of Boston ; that the gong was not sounded ; that the plaintiff and her companion, who was another child of about her own age, before starting to cross the street, looked both ways to see if a car was coming, and saw nothing; that the plaintiff was crossing slowly ; and that the car came upon her and struck her and ran over her. The evidence upon these points was conflicting; but if the plaintiff’s evidence was believed by the jury, it was competent for them to find that she was in the exercise of due care, and that the defendant’s motorman was negligent.

Exceptions overruled.