TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Obrey v. McCarthy

Lawrence J. Obrey v. Dennis J. McCarthy (and three companion cases)

Obrey v. McCarthy, 25 N.E.2d 150 (Mass. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 30, 1940
Judges
Lummus
Citations
25 N.E.2d 150305 Mass. 831940 Mass. LEXIS 749

Opinion of the Court — Lummus

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

Lummus, J.

These cases arise out of a collision between an automobile owned and operated by the male plaintiff, in which the female plaintiff was riding, and a street car owned by the defendant corporation and operated by its servant the individual defendant. The collision took place at the intersection of Washington Street and River Road in Brookline. The street car was travelling on Washington Street. River Road, on which the plaintiffs were approaching, comes in from the right of a person looking ahead from the street car. The plaintiffs were intending to cross Washington Street and enter Pond Street on the farther side of Washington Street. The street car struck the left side of the automobile.

The judge instructed the jury that the right of way statute, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 89, § 8, applies to street cars as well as to other vehicles. The exception of the defendants to that instruction brings the cases here after verdicts for the plaintiffs.

The statute imposes its obligation upon “every driver of a motor or other vehicle approaching an intersection of any ways.” In Foster v. Curtis, 213 Mass. 79 , a street car was held a vehicle within another provision of the law of the road. After five sections dealing with various aspects of the law of the road, G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 89, § 6, now provides: “In construing rules, by-laws and regulations concerning the use and operation of vehicles on ways, street railway cars or other cars moving upon rails shall not be considered to be vehicles within the provisions of the five preceding sections, unless it is expressly so provided.” Nothing in that section affects the status of a street car as a vehicle within the meaning of § 8. The danger of collision, which § 8 seeks to lessen, exists equally where one of the vehicles is a street car and where both are vehicles of other sorts. Fournier v. Zinn, 257 Mass. 575, 578, 579 . It would be confusing to have one standard of rights and *85 duties when a street car is encountered at an intersection, and another when a different vehicle is found there. In our opinion the instruction was correct.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1943: 11987: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brule v. Union Street Railway Co.52 N.E.2d 388 (Mass. 1943)
  2. Walker v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority505 N.E.2d 566 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)

Most recent

  1. Walker v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority505 N.E.2d 566 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987)
  2. Brule v. Union Street Railway Co.52 N.E.2d 388 (Mass. 1943)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Fournier v. Zinn, 154 N.E. 268 (Mass. 1926) 38
Foster v. Curtis, 99 N.E. 961 (Mass. 1912) 14

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