Final decree affirmed. See "brief statement of the grounds and reasons of the decision" in Perkins v. Darker, decided herewith.
Judgment for the defendant. This is an action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall on January 15, 1960, while alighting from the defendant's taxicab. There was evidence that the plaintiff's home was at 22 Bowers Street, West Springfield, Massachusetts. It was about 5 P.M. and the weather was cold. Bowers Street was "snow-covered and slippery." The plaintiff entered the cab and stated to the driver, "You are going to bring me to 22 Bowers Street," and the driver said "Yep." There were no chains on the taxicab and the driver was unable to "go any further" than "to a point about one hundred feet diagonally across the street from the plaintiff's home." There were snowbanks on each side of Bowers Street. The cab stopped next to a snowbank. After the plaintiff paid her fare she proceeded to alight "by the rear right-hand door." She tried to open the door and "[i]t wouldn't open." She "pressed a little harder and it opened" and as she went to put her left foot in the snowbank, the "door gave" and she "went out." As a result of the fall the plaintiff suffered injuries. The plaintiff excepted to the allowance of a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant. The case is here on a report by the trial judge. Although there was an obligation on the defendant as a carrier to stop the cab at a safe place for the plaintiff to alight or to give warning of danger in alighting (see Brown v. Metropolitan Transit Authy. 341 Mass. 690 , 693), the evidence does not show that in following the plaintiff's instructions the driver could have proceeded any farther along Bowers Street to a safer place. The plaintiff was just as much aware of the weather conditions as was the driver. The record discloses no negligence in the circumstances on the part of the defendant. Lenoue v. Worcester Consol. St. Ry. 257 Mass. 285 , 286. There was no error.
Order dismissing report affirmed. In amplification of his general finding for the defendants in this action for false arrest, the judge made special
findings that, after notice by the defendant attorney on behalf of the defendant landowner to the police and to the plaintiff that the latter was not to enter the enclosed locus, the plaintiff deliberately did enter, was arrested by a police officer pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 266, Section 120, and found guilty; that the plaintiff was in fact a trespasser; and that the arrest was lawful. The plaintiff's requests for rulings were predicated on facts which were at variance with the facts found by the judge, and were properly denied. No question of law was presented to the Appellate Division and none is presented to us. Kelsey v. Hampton Court Hotel Co. 327 Mass. 150 , 152, and cases cited.