Caswell v. Boston & Worcester Railroad

98 Mass. 194
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 98 Mass. 194 (Caswell 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
Caswell v. Boston & Worcester Railroad, 98 Mass. 194 (Mass. 1867).

Opinion

Bigelow, C. J.

"We are of opinion that the instructions in this case were well adapted to the facts in evidence, and were in all respects sufficient to give the jury an adequate understanding of the rights and duties of the defendants. We do not see that they do not in all essential particulars conform to the principles stated with great accuracy and fulness in Warren v. Fitchburg Railroad Co. 8 Allen, 227.

The evidence was sufficient to warrant a jury in finding, 1. that the plaintiff seasonably and without undue haste passed across the track of the railroad, and took a proper position on the platform provided by the defendants for passengers who were about to take the train that was approaching; 2. that, while standing there in a suitable place, where passengers were accustomed to be m order to enter the train, she had good reason to believe that she was in actual peril of injury by reason of the approach of an engine in an unexpected direction, in consequence of the displacement of a switch ; 3. that this reasonable apprehension of peril and injury was adequate and sufficient to excite alarm, and to induce the plaintiff to make efforts to escape as rapidly as possible; 4. that this displacement of the switch and the consequent approach of the engine in such manner as to excite alarm and apprehension of injury were owing to the culpable negligence of the servants of the defendants and 5. that this negligence was the efficient cause of the plain* tiff’s injuries. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Beaty v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.
185 S.W. 238 (Texas Supreme Court, 1916)
Beaty v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
185 S.W. 298 (Texas Supreme Court, 1916)
Rogers v. Kennebec Steamboat Co.
25 L.R.A. 491 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1894)
Railway Co. v. Murray
17 L.R.A. 787 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Memphis & Ohio River Packet Co. v. McCool
83 Ind. 392 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Mayo v. Boston & Maine Railroad
104 Mass. 137 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)
Forsyth v. Boston & Albany Railroad
103 Mass. 510 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mass. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caswell-v-boston-worcester-railroad-mass-1867.