Barden v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad

121 Mass. 426, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 7
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 6, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

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.

Bluebook
Barden v. Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad, 121 Mass. 426, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 7 (Mass. 1877).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

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

Taylor v. Bamberger Electric R.
220 P. 695 (Utah Supreme Court, 1923)
Locke v. Director General of Railroads
241 Mass. 284 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Kettel v. Erie Railroad
176 A.D. 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Young v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
100 N.E. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Larson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
98 N.E. 1048 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Pruitt v. San Pedro, L.A. & Salt Lake R.R.
118 P. 223 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
McDermott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
94 N.E. 309 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Crosby
53 Fla. 400 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
Weinschenk v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
76 N.E. 662 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. Humphrey
83 Miss. 721 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1903)
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bell
57 S.W. 938 (Texas Supreme Court, 1900)
Romine v. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad
56 N.E. 245 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Burr v. Pennsylvania Railroad
44 A. 845 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1899)
Peverly v. City of Boston
136 Mass. 366 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Treat v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
131 Mass. 371 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 Mass. 426, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barden-v-boston-clinton-fitchburg-railroad-mass-1877.