Bancroft v. Boston & Worcester Railroad

97 Mass. 275
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 97 Mass. 275 (Bancroft v. Boston & Worcester Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bancroft v. Boston & Worcester Railroad, 97 Mass. 275 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Bigelow, C. J.

Upon the uncontroverted evidence the court is of opinion that the plaintiff’s intestate was not in the use of due care at the time of the accident which occasioned his death. The defendants had caused to be provided a sufficiently convenient and readily accessible place of egress from the platform on which the intestate stepped upon leaving the train. He could have reached the highway through the passage so provided without going on the track of the railroad. Instead of taking this course, he attempted to pass across the track unnecessarily, at a moment when he knew that the train which he had just left was slowly moving off so as to obstruct his view towards the point from which trains coming from the city approached the station. In consequence of this he did not see the express train, by which he was struck, in time to extricate himself seasonably to avoid collision with it. The track of a railroad, over which frequent trains are passing, is a place of dan ger. A person who goes upon it unnecessarily or without valid [279]*279cause, voluntarily incurs a risk for the consequences of which he cannot hold other persons responsible, certainly not without adequate proof that he took active measures of precaution to guard against accident.

According to the terms of the report, the verdict rendered for the plaintiff must be set aside and an entry made of

Judgment for the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Joyce v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
17 N.E.2d 189 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Kovarik v. Long Island Railroad
189 A.D. 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Lundergan v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
89 N.E. 625 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Pere Marquette Railroad v. Strange
84 N.E. 819 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Koch v. Southern California Ry. Co.
84 P. 176 (California Supreme Court, 1906)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. McClellan
1 Ohio Law Rep. 681 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1903)
Huff v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
35 S.E. 866 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1900)
Ellis v. Boston & Maine Railroad
48 N.E. 839 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Wade
48 N.E. 12 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Whittle
74 F. 296 (Eighth Circuit, 1896)
Tyler v. Old Colony Railroad
32 N.E. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Young v. Old Colony Railroad
30 N.E. 560 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Cole v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
45 N.W. 983 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)
Donnelly v. Boston & Maine Railroad
24 N.E. 38 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Fletcher v. Fitchburg Railroad
3 L.R.A. 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Allerton v. Boston & Maine Railroad
15 N.E. 621 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry. Co. v. Cavenesse
48 Ark. 106 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1886)
Boss v. Providence & Worcester Railroad
1 A. 9 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1885)
Van Ostran v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 590 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
McQuilken v. Central Pacific Railroad
2 P. 46 (California Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 Mass. 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bancroft-v-boston-worcester-railroad-mass-1867.