TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Luca v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Co.

Rocco Luca v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company

Luca v. Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co., 171 N.E. 664 (Mass. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 27, 1930
Judges
Rugg
Citations
171 N.E. 664271 Mass. 4321930 Mass. LEXIS 1155

Opinion of the Court — Rugg

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rugg, C.J.

This is an action of tort, by a passenger upon an electric car of the defendant, to recover compensation for injuries sustained by reason of a window falling upon his hand. A summary of the material facts is that *433 the plaintiff boarded the car at Orient Heights to go to Revere Street; that he had to change cars at Revere Beach; that after the change6he sat in about the middle of the car, no one being in the seat beside him and there being five to seven other people then in the car; that after the lapse of three or four minutes the car started and after going about a fifth of a mile the window, which like all or most of the others in the car was open, dropped upon and injured his hand. The place at Revere Beach where the plaintiff changed cars was called a terminal; it was not a building but was wide open; some of the cars ran around a loop and out on the return journey and on others the operator changed the signs, trolley and control, turned the seats and then started the car on the return trip. The cars start out on a regular schedule and in any event leave within a few minutes after arriving at this so called terminal; there is no car barn and no storage of cars and no employees engaged in the inspection or repair of cars.

A verdict was rightly directed for the defendant on these facts. The unexplained falling of the window was no evidence of negligence. Murphy v. Boston Elevated Railway, 229 Mass. 38 , and cases there collected.

Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1931: 11932: 11957: 11990: 119312026peak 1931 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mulry v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.179 N.E. 595 (Mass. 1932)
  2. Wilson v. Honeywell, Inc.550 N.E.2d 887 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
  3. Scott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.176 N.E. 530 (Mass. 1931)
  4. Egan v. Metropolitan Transit Authority146 N.E.2d 495 (Mass. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Wilson v. Honeywell, Inc.550 N.E.2d 887 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990)
  2. Egan v. Metropolitan Transit Authority146 N.E.2d 495 (Mass. 1957)
  3. Mulry v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.179 N.E. 595 (Mass. 1932)
  4. Scott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.176 N.E. 530 (Mass. 1931)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Murphy v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 229 Mass. 38 (1918) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list