June 8, 1982Further appellate review denied: Reported below: 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1032 (1982). MR. JUSTICE LYNCH did not participate.
See, e.g., Gorman v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 350 Mass. 760 (1965); Herwitz v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 353 Mass. 594, 595 (1968); Mirageas v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 391 Mass. 815, 817 n. 2 (1984); Hebert v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 1 Mass. App. Ct. 670, 670-671 (1974); Brown v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 4 Mass. App. Ct. 837 (1976); Cook v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authy., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1032 (1982). The servants and employees who might be sued in tort were to be protected by what is now the third paragraph of ยง 21, which provides that "[t]he directors shall have charge of and supervise the settlement and defense of all such claims and of all other suits or actions . . . arising out of the . . . operation of the authority."
This Court, thus, does not believe that the admission of the single answer to the question propounded to Dr. Korgaonkar, while perhaps erroneous, was prejudicial. See, e.g., Doyle v. Dong, 412 Mass. 682, 688 (1992); DeJesus v. Yogel, 404 Mass. 44, 48 (1989); Cook v. MBTA, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1032, 1033 (1982). The error, if any, was harmless.
(d) Passengers must be in a safe position before moving vehicle. On these facts the trial court's finding for the plaintiff is supported by the following cases: McNeil v. New York, N.H. R.R., 282 Mass. 575, 577 (1933); Cook v. MBTA, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 1032 (1982); Cantara v. MBTA, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 82-3 (1975); White v. New York Central Railroad, 336 Mass. 379 (1957); Boyd v. NewYork, New Haven Hartford Railroad, 332 Mass. 607 (1955); Berger v. MBTA, 355 Mass. 695 (1969); Gorman v. MBTA, 350 Mass. 760 (1965). That which sent the plaintiff to the floor was both a violation of MBTA Operator Rules 22 and 67(d), supra, in that the elderly plaintiff was not "in a safe position before" the defendant, Azar, moved the vehicle and it was not the usual jerk or jolt which must be tolerated on the MBTA according to Berger v. MBTA, 355 Mass. 695 (1969).