History
  • No items yet
midpage
Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
253 Mass. 605
Mass.
1925
Check Treatment
Rugg, C.J.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff, while walking on the "reserved space” in Huntington Avenue in Boston, where there was neither a break nor cross walk, toward a white post with the purpose there to become a passenger of the defendant, was struck by one of the defendant’s cars and injured. When Huntington Avenue was laid out, this space was specially reserved under St. 1894, c. 324, for street railway track location. The case at bar is governed by Crowell v.- Boston Elevated Railway, 234 Mass. 393, where it was held that, under similar circumstances, the traveller was at most' a bare licensee as to the *606defendant, which owed her no duty except to refrain from wanton or reckless conduct. The differences between that case and the present one are immaterial and do not call for the application of a different principle.

Exceptions sustained.

Case Details

Case Name: Treen v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Nov 23, 1925
Citation: 253 Mass. 605
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.