(Download) "Pritchard v. Boston Elevated Ry" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Pritchard v. Boston Elevated Ry
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 04, 1936
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
FIELD, Justice. This motion was brought in a district court by the plaintiff, a minor, by her next friend to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by her as a result of being struck by a car owned and operated by the defendant street railway company while she was crossing the defendant's tracks located in Middlesex Fells Parkway, near Fulton Street, Medford. Some requests by the plaintiff for rulings of law, including a request for a ruling that as 'matter of law, the plaintiff was not a trespasser,' were granted. Other requests by the plaintiff for rulings of law were refused. The Judge made this specific finding: 'I do not find that the operator of the defendant's car was guilty of reckless and wanton conduct, but was guilty of negligence,' and found for the defendant. A report to the Appellate Division was dismissed and the plaintiff appealed to this court. According to the report 'the sole issue raised by this report is whether or not the plaintiff was owed a duty greater than that owed to a trespasser. It is agreed that if the plaintiff was a trespasser, the finding for the defendant is to stand, but if the defendant owed the plaintiff a greater duty than that owed to a trespasser, the finding for the defendant is in error.' The report which 'contains all the evidence material to the questions reported' so far as it sets forth evidence or facts is as follows: 'It is agreed by both parties that the Metropolitan Park Commissioners on March 6, 1907 granted to the defendant's predecessors in accordance with the provisions of Statutes 1894, chap. 288, §§ 1 and 3, and Statutes 1900, chap. 413, § 1 a location of two tracks on Middlesex Fells Parkway in the reserved space between the two roadways, and that all formalities were complied with. The grant to the Defendant's predecessors was of a location for two tracks, setting forth the limits at either end and the side lines thereof, and in the eighth clause the grant specifically defined the word 'location' as follows: 'The word 'location' shall be taken to mean herein any grass or reserved spaces within the location lies between roadways to a width not exceeding thirty two feet. * * *' The injury to the plaintiff was caused by her being struck by a street car operating on the tracks referred to in the above grant at a time when the plaintiff was between the rails of the track and was on her way from school to her home.' The duty owed by the defendant to a trespasser was to refrain from injuring him by wilful, wanton or reckless conduct. Santora v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 211 Mass. 464, 466, 98 N.E. 90; Martin v. Union Street Railway, 277 Mass. 369, 371, 178 N.E. 734. No greater duty was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff if she was merely a licensee. Crowell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 234 Mass. 393, 396, 125 N.E. 607; Herman v. Boston Elevated Railway, 275 Mass. 485, 487, 176 N.E. 180.