Fournier v. Central Taxi Cab, Inc.

Francis Fournier vs. Central Taxi Cab, Inc. & Another

Fournier v. Cent. Taxi Cab, Inc., 118 N.E.2d 767 (Mass. 1954)

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 31, 1954
Judges: Honan, Lummus, Qua, Wilkins, Williams
Citations: 118 N.E.2d 767331 Mass. 2481954 Mass. LEXIS 496

Cited by 12 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Lummus

Lummus, J.

The plaintiff brought in a District Court this action of tort against the Central Taxi Cab, Inc., and its servant and driver, Robert E. Gallagher. In response to a telephone call from the plaintiff, Gallagher drove his cab to a place where were waiting the plaintiff, who was totally blind, two men who also were totally blind, a woman who was totally blind, and one Gildea who had only two per cent light perception. The plaintiff, Gildea, and another man got into the rear seat without assistance, while another man got into the front seat. Gallagher led the blind woman to the left side of the cab, and in order to make a place for her, Gallagher asked the plaintiff to leave the rear seat and get into the front seat. The plaintiff and Gildea both got *249 out of the rear seat by the rear door on the right side of the cab. When the plaintiff was reaching for the handle of the front door Gildea accidently closed the rear door which shut on the plaintiff’s fingers.

The judge denied rulings requested by the defendants to the effect that Gallagher could not be found negligent, and found for the plaintiff. The Appellate Division vacated that finding and ordered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff asked the judge to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances to the effect that a taxicab operator shall not carry a new passenger until the prior passenger shall have discharged him, and that a taxicab operator shall not drive his cab with more than one passenger in the front seat. We need not consider whether these ordinances apply to the case. Neither a trial judge nor this court can consider such alleged ordinances unless they are put in evidence.

Forbes v. Kane, 316 Mass. 207, 210 .

Gaunt v. Board of Appeals of Methuen, 327 Mass. 380, 381 .

Dos Santos v. Peabody, 327 Mass. 519, 521 .

Boyle v. Building Inspector of Malden, 327 Mass. 564, 566 .

Sunderland v. Building Inspector of North Andover, 328 Mass. 638, 641 .

The plaintiff, by becoming a passenger for hire in the taxicab, became entitled to the highest degree of care required by the circumstances to protect him from injury.

Intriligator v. Goldberg, 299 Mass. 333, 335 .

Guinevan v. Checker Taxi Co.

289 Mass. 295, 297 . But the defendants did not insure his safety, and they were not bound to guard him against highly improbable harm. It is true that the defendants knew that he was blind, but he made no request for aid from Gallagher, and there was no evidence that he needed aid.

Tefft v. Boston Elevated Railway, 285 Mass. 121, 124 . It did not appear that Gallagher had any reason to suppose that Gildea also would get out of the cab. Gallagher quite properly was on the left side of the cab, assisting the blind woman, and obviously could not see what was happening to the plaintiff. This is the opinion of a majority of the court.

Order of Appellate Division affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“[njeither a trial judge [of the Municipal Court of the Charlestown District] nor this court can consider such alleged ordinances unless they are put in evidence”)

Commonwealth v. Rushin, 778 N.E.2d 982 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002)

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Minnefor v. Town Taxi, Inc.339 N.E.2d 925 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
Lewis v. Greene Taxi Service, Inc.34 Mass. App. Dec. 15 (1966)
City of Lawrence v. Falzarano402 N.E.2d 1017 (Mass. 1980)
Warren v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst416 N.E.2d 1382 (Mass. 1981)
Sheppard v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Boston963 N.E.2d 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield21 N.E.3d 922 (Mass. 2014)

Most recent

Easthampton Savings Bank v. City of Springfield21 N.E.3d 922 (Mass. 2014)
Sheppard v. Zoning Board of Appeal of Boston963 N.E.2d 748 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Russell v. City of New Bedford910 N.E.2d 404 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009)
Commonwealth v. Rushin778 N.E.2d 982 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002)
Teixeira v. Cab Three, Inc.1994 Mass. App. Div. 154 (1994)
Warren v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst416 N.E.2d 1382 (Mass. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Sunderland v. Bldg. Inspector of North Andover, 105 N.E.2d 471 (Mass. 1952)	30
	Boyle v. Bldg. Inspector of Malden, 99 N.E.2d 925 (Mass. 1951)	23
	Gaunt v. Bd. of Appeals of Methuen, 99 N.E.2d 60 (Mass. 1951)	21
	Tefft v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 188 N.E. 507 (Mass. 1934)	11
	Intriligator v. Goldberg, 12 N.E.2d 730 (Mass. 1938)	11
	Guinevan v. Checker Taxi Co., 289 Mass. 295 (1935)	10
	Dos Santos v. City of Peabody, 99 N.E.2d 852 (Mass. 1951)	9
	Forbes v. Kane, 55 N.E.2d 220 (Mass. 1944)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list