From the foregoing the defendant contends that the plaintiff knew the train would start at any moment, and hence that a continuous sounding of signals would have added nothing to his knowledge. See Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166, 168. The plaintiff's knowledge, however, was not that the train would start at any moment, but that it would do so only after discharging passengers.
Recovery is precluded on grounds which underlie the decisions in Savageau v. Boston Maine Railroad, 210 Mass. 164, and Hutchinson v. Boston Maine Railroad, 219 Mass. 389. See Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166, 168, 169; Boyle v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 184; Bean v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway, 269 Mass. 206. Compare Young v. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad, 171 Mass. 33, 35, and McCarthy v. Boston, Revere Beach Lynn Railroad, 262 Mass. 56. Exceptions sustained.Judgment for the defendants.
The case is governed by Anger v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 163, and cases cited. In Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166, the plaintiff signalled for the car to stop. It was said in that case there was nothing to show that the motorman "ought reasonably to have anticipated that the plaintiff would stand so near to the track that he would come in contact with the running board on the side of the car." The plaintiff relies on Evensen v. Lexington Boston Street Railway, 187 Mass. 77, Gerhart v. Holyoke Street Railway, 236 Mass. 392, and Harlow v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 248 Mass. 572. These and the other cases cited by the plaintiff are to be distinguished on the facts from the case before us.
In Anger v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 163, it was held not to be negligence upon the facts in that case for the motorman to use a powerful searchlight of a model in use upon other cars in places such as that in which the accident occurred. In Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166, a glaring headlight on the defendant's car temporarily blinded a man who stood near the street car rails watching its approach, and who was struck by the running board, and it was held that the order directing a verdict for the defendant was right. The court said, at page 168, "It was not evidence of negligence if the car carried a powerful headlight whose rays had a tendency to blind the sight of the plaintiff as it approached the point where he was standing.
We are of opinion that there was no evidence of negligence of either. Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166. Boyle v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 184. Stearns v. Boston Maine Railroad, 75 N.H. 40, 47, 49. Illinois Central Railroad v. Ackerman, 144 Fed. Rep. 959. St. Louis San Francisco Railroad v. Summers, 173 Fed. Rep. 358. The case of Clapp v. New York, New Haven, Hartford Railroad, 229 Mass. 532, cited by the plaintiff, is plainly distinguishable in its facts from the present case. The judge rightly instructed the jury that the failure of the defendant to provide a crossing tender, or to maintain gates, a flagman or electric bells, or other warning signals at the crossing as set forth in the plaintiff's specifications "d," "e" and "h," was not negligence on its part, and that there was no evidence that the defendant had failed to maintain adequate headlights or braking facilities for the train, as alleged in its specifications "i" and "j."
But he was not dazzled by the headlight until it was one hundred feet away from him; and when fifty feet distant the light was turned off. According to the plaintiff's testimony the car was then moving rapidly, and he was travelling at the rate of from seven to fifteen miles an hour; and it was during this very brief interval while the car went the distance of fifty feet that the light dazzled him. The defendant had the right to use the headlight, Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166, 168, and the fact that the plaintiff, while a traveller on the highway, was dazzled by the headlight while the car going rapidly had moved but fifty feet, is insufficient to show anything more than a momentary dazzling or blinding such as happened to the plaintiff in Spoatea v. Berkshire Street Railway, supra; and such facts do not establish negligence in the use or operation of the headlight. In the case at bar there was nothing to show that the motorman saw the plaintiff's automobile, which was behind the unlighted cart, until the light was dimmed; and it cannot be said in these circumstances that there was evidence of negligence of the motorman in failing to dim the light.
Neither the speed of the car nor the failure of the motorman to see the truck or to stop the car was negligent as matter of law. Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway, 231 Mass. 166. The disclosed conduct of the conductor did not warrant a ruling that he failed to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances.
It was held in an opinion by Chief Justice RUGG that the evidence failed to show any negligence on the part of the defendant in the character or management of the light. In Daigneau v. Worcester Street Ry. Co., 231 Mass. 166, 120 N.E. 400, plaintiff, an intending passenger, became blinded by the headlight of an approaching street car which she intended to take, and stood too close to the tracks and was hit by the overhang of the running boards. A verdict directed for defendant was affirmed.