Hansen v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Keefe v. Eastern Mass. St. Railway

    159 N.E. 528 (Mass. 1928)

    In Spoatea v. Berkshire Street Railway, 212 Mass. 599, the plaintiff, blinded by a "large night reflector" headlight on a street car as it turned a curve, ran his bicycle into a team at a place where there was room for him to pass without collision if he had not become blinded by the light, and it was held that he could not recover. It appeared that the track was at the side of the street and the light of the kind which the plaintiff had ordinarily seen on street cars. In Hansen v. Fitchburg Leominster Street Railway, 222 Mass. 116, the headlight of a street car as it came around a curve frightened a horse which bolted and caused the accident. One of the contentions was that the motorman should have turned off his light sooner, but it did not appear that he did not do this as soon as he saw that the horse was frightened.

  2. Tupper v. Union Street Railway

    129 N.E. 881 (Mass. 1921)   Cited 2 times
    In Tupper v. Union Street Railway, 237 Mass. 485, the plaintiff was riding in an automobile which ran into an unlighted team, and the cause alleged for the collision was that the driver of the automobile was blinded by the glaring headlight on an approaching street car.

    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. See Hansen v. Fitchburg Leominster Street Railway, 222 Mass. 116. A circular letter of the board of railroad commissioners of May 21, 1906, was in evidence.

  3. Levine v. Cohen

    126 N.E. 660 (Mass. 1920)   Cited 6 times

    Hence no error appears in their denial. Canfield v. Canfield, 112 Mass. 233. Horton v. Cooley, 135 Mass. 589. Hansen v. Fitchburg Leominster Street Railway, 222 Mass. 116. The remaining request is as follows: "The action by the mortgagee Morrison in entering to foreclose the mortgage upon the premises since this suit was begun, to wit, on Monday, December 30, 1918, defeats this action if it is found that this plaintiff knew that the conditions of the original sale had not been complied with."

  4. Daigneau v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.

    120 N.E. 400 (Mass. 1918)   Cited 8 times
    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."

    It is a matter of common knowledge that such headlights are in general use under similar circumstances upon electric street cars at night. Spoatea v. Berkshire Street Railway, 212 Mass. 599. Hansen v. Fitchburg Leominster Street Railway, 222 Mass. 116. Nor was the failure to ring the bell or to sound the gong or to give some other signal of the approach of the car evidence of negligence of the motorman.