Street Railway. Negligence, Liability to trespasser. A street railway corporation owes to a boy ten years and five months old, who is stealing a ride on the rear end of one of its cars, only the duty to refrain from wilfully or wantonly and recklessly exposing him to danger, and it is not evidence of the violation of such duty that the conductor in a gruff voice told the boy to get off the car and shook his fist close to the boy's face, and that the boy was frightened by the conductor's tone of voice and tried to get off but could not and lost his balance and fell.
HAMMOND, J.
The plaintiff was a wilful trespasser; and to him "the defendant owed no duty, except to refrain from wilfully or wantonly and recklessly exposing him to danger." Knowlton, C.J., in Bjornquist v. Boston Albany Railroad, 185 Mass. 130, 132. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence in detail. It is contradictory in many respects, but even if it be taken in the light most favorable for the plaintiff it falls far short of showing that the defendant failed to perform the limited duty it owed to the plaintiff. The case must stand in the class with Bjornquist v. Boston Albany Railroad, ubi supra; Albert v. Boston Elevated Railway, 185 Mass. 210; Massell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 191 Mass. 491; Anternoitz v. New York, New Haven, Hartford Railroad, 193 Mass. 542; Lebov v. Consolidated Railway, 203 Mass. 380, and similar cases.
Judgment on the verdict.