Opinion
December 4, 1924.
December 5, 1924.
Present: RUGG, C.J., BRALEY, PIERCE, WAIT, SANDERSON, JJ.
Negligence, Street railway: construction of folding step; Res ipsa loquitur. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof.
Evidence, at the trial of an action against a street railway company for personal injuries, which merely tends to show that the plaintiff, as he was leaving a street car of the defendant, caught his heel in a step adapted to be folded, is not sufficient to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant, and a verdict for the defendant properly may be ordered.
TORT for personal injuries alleged to have been received when the plaintiff fell from a street car of the defendant by reason of his heel catching in a hinged running board of the car. Writ dated March 2, 1921.
In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Quinn, J. Evidence introduced by the plaintiff tended merely to show that the plaintiff's fall was due to his catching his heel in the hinged running board, which was adapted to be folded up. At the close of the testimony of the plaintiff and testimony of the plaintiff's wife, who merely saw him fall, the defendant rested and the trial judge ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
H.A. Bowen, ( J.M. Fogarty with him, for the plaintiff.
H.R. Mayo, for the defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for damages sustained by a passenger on a car of the defendant. As he was alighting the heel of the right shoe of the passenger caught in a crack or opening, apparently made as a part of the construction of the car, between the step and riser or apron, and he fell and was injured. The steps could be pulled up and let down. There is nothing in the evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant. The case is governed by Coleman v. Boston Elevated Railway, 249 Mass. 155, 158, and cases there collected.
Exceptions overruled.