192 Mass. 295 | Mass. | 1906
These two actions were tried and argued together. The first is by a married woman to recover for injuries received by her through the defendant’s negligence while a passenger in one of the defendant’s cars. The other is by the husband to recover the amount paid for medical services and other expenses and for loss of consortium. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in each case. The cases are here on exceptions by the defendant to the refusal of the judge to rule that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, and that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
The female plaintiff’s account of the accident was that she took a car between East Weymouth and South Weymouth, that it was a box car and the plaintiff was seated at about the middle of it, and after she had been riding six or seven minutes towards
Whether the account given by the female plaintiff of the way in which she received the alleged injuries was correct or not was clearly for the jury. And we think that it was also competent for them to find that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the defendant. The defendant did not offer or attempt to offer any explanation of the accident. The track and the car were under its control, and in the absence of any explanation tending to show that the accident occurred without any fault on its part the jury were warranted in finding that it would not have occurred if the defendant had exercised proper care. White v. Boston Albany & Railroad, 144 Mass. 404. Feital v. Middlesex Railroad, 109 Mass. 398. Uggla v. West End Street Railway, 160 Mass. 351. Copithorne v. Hardy, 173 Mass. 400. Savage v. Marlborough Street Railway, 186 Mass. 203.
Exceptions overruled.