Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/201/201mass7.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:29:39+00:00

Document:
ANTONIO TOGNAZZI vs. MILFORD AND UXBRIDGE STREET RAILWAY COMPANY.
Negligence, Street railway, In use of highway.
it was necessary for his safety that he should do so, and also that he did not know how often nor exactly when the defendant's cars ran at this place. After he drove upon the street where the defendant's track was, he proceeded along the street for about three hundred feet, at first ten feet and later two or three feet from the track, when, arriving opposite a doorway leading to his own house, he turned directly across the tracks of the defendant, without having looked while he was travelling the three hundred feet to see whether a car was approaching, and was struck by a car of the defendant which had approached from behind him and was negligently operated. The plaintiff testified that he heard no bell or gong or car. There was no evidence that he listened. Held, that as a matter of law the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, since, if he had exercised ordinary precaution and leaned out of his wagon and looked backward before crossing the track the second time, he would have seen the approaching car.
While one, who has been driving in a covered wagon for some distance along a highway upon which are tracks of a street railway, in turning to cross the tracks properly can trust something to the expectation that, if a car is approaching from behind, the motorman will exercise reasonable care not to run into his wagon, he is not justified in relying altogether upon such expectation, but is bound himself to take proper measures for his safety.
TORT for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff in a collision between a butcher's wagon, which he was driving, and an electric car of the defendant on East Main Street in Milford at five minutes past one o'clock in the afternoon of November 10, 1906. Writ in the Superior Court for the county of Worcester dated February 18, 1907.
The case was tried in the Superior Court before King, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the presiding judge ordered a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
The case was argued at the bar in September, 1908, before Knowlton, C. J., Morton, Loring, Sheldon, & Rugg, J J., and afterwards was submitted on briefs to all the justices.
J. B. Ratigan, (J. E. Swift with him,) for the plaintiff.
C. C. Milton, for the defendant.
MORTON, J. We assume in favor of the plaintiff without deciding that the evidence warranted a finding that the motorman was negligent; but we think that the ruling that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care was correct.
the car passed. He was not justified in relying solely upon the look or glance which he gave when he crossed from North Street into East Main Street, three hundred feet away, even though he saw no car approaching. To rely solely upon the look which he then gave was to invite just such an accident as occurred. In Williamson v. Old Colony Street Railway, 191 Mass. 144, relied on by the plaintiff, there was evidence that as the plaintiff drove along he "was listening to see what he could hear," and in Jeddrey v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 198 Mass. 232, also relied on by the plaintiff, there was evidence tending to show that before the plaintiff crossed the track he "looked back to see if it was perfectly safe to go over" perhaps "two hundred or three hundred feet." That the plaintiff recognized that there was or might be danger in crossing the track is shown by the precaution which he took at the North Street crossing; but so far as appears he took no precaution as he crossed the track into his own premises. For a case closely resembling this, although the distance which the plaintiff drove before turning to cross the track was greater, see Seele v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 187 Mass. 248. See also Birch v. Athol & Orange Street Railway, 198 Mass. 257; Beirne v. Lawrence & Methuen Street Railway, 197 Mass. 173; Fitzgerald v. Boston Elevated Railway, 194 Mass. 242; Saltman v. Boston Elevated Railway, 187 Mass. 243; Donovan v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 185 Mass. 533.
In the opinion of the majority of the court the exceptions must be overruled.

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