Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/197/197mass289.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:02:26+00:00

Document:
JAMES LE BARON vs. OLD COLONY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
At the trial of an action against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by reason of a collision on the highway between a wagon that he was driving and a car of the defendant, the evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended to show that he was seventy years of age and of good eyesight and hearing, that, at four o'clock on a hot afternoon in September, he was driving slowly on a highway, in which were tracks of the defendant, a horse, which was slow by nature and tired from hard work, attached to a heavy, empty and noisy coal wagon which had no cover, hood or awning of any kind; that, intending to cross the tracks, which were at the extreme left of the road, in order to enter a street on that side, he stopped his team five feet from them and looked in both directions and listened, but neither saw nor heard any car; that thereupon he started slowly across the tracks, and, when part way across, saw a car approaching on his left very fast; that, although he tried to get out of the way, the car struck the left hind wheel of his wagon, broke both wheels and various other parts of the wagon and went on for more than its length before it stopped; that, just before the accident, the speed of the car was increased and it was moving rapidly, and that the motorman was inexperienced. It also appeared that, from the place where he stopped before crossing the track, the plaintiff could see in the direction from which the car came at least three hundred feet. The defendant relied upon evidence which tended to contradict that of the plaintiff, and also to show that, before the collision occurred, the car was going very slowly. Held, that there was evidence for the jury from which they were warranted in finding that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and that the defendant was negligent.
TORT for personal injuries received by the plaintiff and for damage to his wagon by reason of a collision with a car of the defendant at the junction of Main and Water Streets in Hingham. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Norfolk dated December 10, 1903.
wagon without cover, hood or awning of any kind; that on the same afternoon he had been to East Weymouth with the horse and wagon where he procured a load of coal which, shortly before the accident, he had delivered to a customer in the neighborhood; that it was a very hot day; that it was his habit to stop as he did before crossing a street car track ; that he stopped five or six feet from the track and that, when he started up again, the horse, being slow by nature and having been working hard, started slowly; that the wagon made a noise when he was driving it; that, when the car struck the wagon, it broke both wheels, the tail board, the cross bar and the railings of the wagon and then passed on for more than its length before it was stopped.
At the close of the evidence, the defendant requested the presiding judge to rule that, on all the evidence, the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care and was not entitled to recover, and that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The rulings were refused and the defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
A. P. Worthen, for the plaintiff.
burden of proof which rests upon the party." Hillyer v. Dickinson, 154 Mass. 502. See O'Leary v. Haverhill & Plaistow Street Railway, 193 Mass. 339; James v. Interstate Consolidated Street Railway, 193 Mass. 264; Stubbs v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 193 Mass. 513; Harris v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway, 193 Mass. 56; Halloran v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 192 Mass. 104; Williamson v. Old Colony Street Railway, 191 Mass. 144; Chaput v. Haverhill, Georgetown & Danvers Street Railway, 194 Mass. 218.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.