
    Etta M. Field vs. Boston Elevated Railway Company. George H. Field vs. Same.
    Two actions op tort, one by a girl, about seventeen years of age when injured, a passenger on an elevated train of the defendant, for injuries sustained while alighting at the defendant’s subway station at Park Street in Boston on the morning of December 9, 1901, and the other by the father of the plaintiff in the first case for loss of her services and earnings, and for expenses incurred for nursing and medical attendance. Writs dated January 20, 1902.
    In the Superior Court the cases were tried together before Hardy, J. The plaintiff in the first case testified that the train was very crowded, “ jammed full ”, and that there was a crowd standing in the car. She described the accident as follows: “ When we got right near Park Street, I got up to go to the door, and those that were at the door of course moved out first, and the crowd in back was pushing, and the guard said, ‘ Step lively, please ’; I stepped out, and as I stepped out the crowd turned me around and my left foot went down between the train and the platform, and my right foot went on the platform.” She further testified that “ she went down the full length of her left leg and struck. ” Other evidence is mentioned in the opinion.
    The judge ordered a verdict for the defendant in both cases; and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      W. E. Collins, (W. L. Collins with him,) for the plaintiffs.
    
      E. P. Saltonstall & S. H. E. Freund, for the defendant, were not called upon.
   Knowlton, C. J.

The first of these cases cannot be distinguished from Willworth v. Boston Elevated Railway, ante, 220, and the decision of the second depends upon the same facts. The plaintiff in the first case had ridden on the elevated railway ten or a dozen times before the accident, and, although the car was crowded and she said the passengers were rushing to get out, she testified that “ there was the same rush that would ordinarily occur in an elevated train.” The evidence on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendant tended to show that the greatest space between the car and the platform of the station was not more than three and five eighths inches. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.  