Case Name: Catherine O'Brien vs. Boston Elevated Railway Company
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1924-10-24
Citations: 250 Mass. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catherine O’Brien vs. Boston Elevated Railway Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
Catherine O’Brien vs. Boston Elevated Railway Company.
Suffolk.
October 23, 1924.
October 24, 1924.
Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Crosby, Pierce, & Sanderson, JJ.
Negligence, Elevated railway: slippery substance on station step. Evidence, Matter of conjecture.
At the trial of an action by a woman against a street railway company to recover for personal injuries sustained by her, there was evidence tending to show that, while she was descending stairs in a station of the defendant, she stepped to one side in order to avoid an employee of the defendant who was sweeping the stairs, that as she proceeded “ she felt her foot going from under her. . . . The surface of the step felt very slippery. . . . The front of the foot slipped right over a slippery substance.” There was no evidence to indicate what this substance was or how long it had been there, and no witness saw it or described it. Held, that there was no evidence warranting a finding of negligence for which the defendant could be held liable.
Tort for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of falling upon stairs maintained by the defendant at its station in Boston called Park Street Under. Writ dated January 27, 1921.
The action was tried in the Superior Court before Lawton, J. Material evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial judge ordered the jury to find for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
C. W. Blood, for the plaintiff.
The defendant was not called on.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff tended to show that, while descending stairs in a station of the defendant, in order to avoid an employee of the defendant sweeping the stairs, she stepped to the other side, and the sweeper " stood so she would pass by — as she went down the third step . . . she felt her foot going from under her. . . . The surface of the step felt very slippery. . . . The front of the foot slipped right over a slippery substance." There was nothing to indicate what this substance was or how long it had been there. No witness saw it or described it. The testimony was that there was on the stairs " simply the sweeping . . . nothing except dust in it," " just a little bunch where the porter was sweeping. There was no skid mark on the stairs."
There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The case is governed by numerous decisions. Goddard v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 179 Mass. 52. Hotenbrink v. Boston Elevated Railway, 211 Mass. 77. Norton v. Hudner, 213 Mass. 257. Zugbie v. J. R. Whipple Co. 230 Mass. 19. Labrie v. Donham, 243 Mass. 584. O'Neill v. Boston Elevated Railway, 248 Mass. 362, and cases there collected.
Exceptions overruled.