295 Mass. 90 | Mass. | 1936
These are actions of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, while they were passengers in a taxicab owned by the defendant. The cases were tried in the Superior Court before a jury, and resulted in verdicts for the plaintiffs. It was agreed by the parties that a single bill of exceptions might be filed covering both cases.
The following recitals are contained in the defendant’s substitute bill of exceptions: It was admitted by the defendant that at the time of the accident it was a carrier of passengers for hire. The plaintiff Milton Mendler testified on his direct examination that he and his wife engaged a taxicab of the defendant on Tremont Street, in Boston; that he instructed the driver to take him to his home at 1330 Commonwealth Avenue, Allston; that the taxicab turned up Stuart Street and went up to Berkeley Street or Clarendon Street, and then turned on to the outbound side of Commonwealth Avenue; that it was snowing at the time he engaged the taxicab, the streets were quite slippery, and it was beginning to get dark; that after they reached a point beyond Kenmore Square there was snow on the ground, and it was then snowing quite hard; that before reaching the Massachusetts State Armory he had twice noticed the speed of the taxicab; that he first noticed it after leaving Kenmore Station, and it was then travelling
The foregoing testimony was admissible upon the question of the alleged negligence of the operator of the taxicab.
The plaintiff Bertha Mendler testified in direct examination that after the taxicab left Kenmore Station it was proceeding at a rate of about forty to forty-five miles an hour; that she had passed Massachusetts Avenue and Kenmore Station and was on the right hand side of Commonwealth Avenue before she spoke to the driver of the taxicab; and that she told the driver “not to go quite so fast; that she said 'please don’t go so fast,’” She further testified that
At the close of the evidence the defendant filed in each case a motion for a directed verdict on the ground that “There is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, its agents or servants.” The trial judge refused to grant the motions and the defendant excepted.
It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs were precluded from recovery on the ground that they were negligent in not requesting the driver to stop and allow them to leave the taxicab. We are of opinion that there is no merit in this contention. The plaintiffs, as passengers in the taxicab, might reasonably assume that the driver would heed their warnings and reduce his speed, especially in view of the fact that it was snowing and the roadway was slippery. The testimony of the plaintiffs that the driver of the taxicab was operating it at a speed of from forty to forty-five miles an hour during a snow storm, and when the pavements were wet and slippery, warranted a finding that, if the warnings of the plaintiffs had been heeded, it would not have been necessary, in order to avoid a collision with the automobile which came out of the side street, to stop the taxicab so suddenly as to throw the plaintiffs upon the floor, thereby causing them to be injured. It could have been found that the speed of the taxicab and the failure to heed the warnings of the plaintiffs constituted negligence on the part of the defendant.
The rate of speed of the taxicab immediately before it was suddenly stopped and the plaintiffs were thrown to the floor might be found to be in violation of G, L. (Ter. Ed.)
As no error appears in the conduct of the trial the entries must be
Exceptions overruled.
