Barden v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad
This text of 121 Mass. 426 (Barden v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg 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.
Opinion
We can have no doubt that the contract between the parties, which required the corporation to furnish f ie plaiutiff with a seat, did not, as matter of law, oblige him to keep, it from the time he first took it until the train had come to a final stop at the place of his destination; and that the question, whether he was wanting in reasonable care in leaving his seat and standing in the passageway inside the closed door, after the approach of the train to the station at which he was to alight had been announced and the car had actually entered the station, and for the purpose of hastening his departure from the car, was a question of fact for the jury.
In the cases on which the defendant mainly relies, the plaintiff was not, as in this case, wholly within the car. Hickey v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 14 Allen, 429. Todd v. Old Colony Railroad, 3 Allen, 18, and 7 Allen, 207. Pittsburg & Connellsville Railroad v. McClurg, 56 Penn. St. 294.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 Mass. 426, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barden-v-boston-clinton-fitchburg-railroad-mass-1877.