## Facts

- Charles Stevens was driving a horse-drawn carriage on a public way when a streetcar operated by Boston Elevated Railway Company collided with his carriage.
- Stevens was injured in the collision and later died; his estate brought a wrongful-death negligence action.
- The plaintiff offered evidence of the railway’s internal operating rule directing motormen to ring a gong when approaching pedestrians, cars, or vehicles, and at all street crossings.
- Evidence permitted a finding that the motorman did not ring the gong before the collision as the rule required.
- The trial judge allowed the jury to consider the internal rule and the alleged violation as evidence bearing on negligence; the jury found for the plaintiff.
- The railway challenged these rulings through exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant’s internal safety rule is admissible and may be considered by the jury as evidence of negligence when an employee violates the rule in conduct affecting third parties.
2. Whether permitting the jury to consider the rule improperly treats a private policy as the legal standard of due care.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overruled the defendant’s exceptions.
- The court held the internal rule was admissible and could be considered by the jury as evidence relevant to negligence.
- The court affirmed that the rule did not establish the legal standard of care; it was a circumstance for the jury to weigh with other evidence.
- The verdict for the plaintiff was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A private safety rule adopted by a defendant may be admitted as evidence bearing on whether the defendant exercised reasonable care.
- Violation of an internal safety rule does not, by itself, define the legal duty owed or conclusively prove negligence.
- Internal rules are probative because they may reflect the defendant’s own assessment of precautions appropriate for safe operation under recurring conditions.
- The jury remains responsible for applying the general reasonable-care standard, using the internal rule as one evidentiary factor.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission and jury consideration of a railway’s internal gong-ringing rule as evidence of negligence, while maintaining that such private rules inform—but do not fix—the legal standard of due care.


Stevens v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 69 N.E. 338 (Mass. 1904)