French v. Taunton Branch Railroad

116 Mass. 537, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 32
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 21, 1875·Published·Cited by 52 cases

Opinion

Endicott, J.

This case was properly submitted to the jury. The circumstances were peculiar. As the plaintiff approached the crossing, a freight train was passing; and after the last car had passed, she attempted to cross. She was driving with care and watching the road ; she heard no signal, received no warning that other cars were coming, and saw no flagman. At a point forty-six feet from the centre of the track, she could have seen up the track forty-six feet; at thirty feet from the crossing, she could have seen the track for a long distance. She did not look in that direction when she reached those points, and gave as a reason that she did not suppose that one train would follow so closely upon another. She was struck by some cars which had been purposely detached from the train that had passed, and which, without warning of their approach, followed the train over the crossing. Of the negligence of the defendant, upon her evi[541]*541dence, there can be no question. Whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of that due care which persons of common prudence and intelligence would exercise when placed in a similar situation, and whether she was careless in failing to look up the track at the points near the crossing where it was visible, was a question for the jury to determine in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Wheelock v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 105 Mass. 203. Allyn v. Boston & Albany Railroad, Ib. 77. Chaffee v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 104 Mass. 108. Exceptions overruled.

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

French v. Taunton Branch Railroad, 116 Mass. 537, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 32 (Mass. 1875).

116 Mass. 537 (French v. Taunton Branch Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lindsey v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
296 P. 131 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
McDaniel v. Hines
239 S.W. 471 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1922)
Guy v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
191 Iowa 302 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Crawford v. Michigan Central Railroad
173 N.W. 523 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
Weck v. Reno Traction Co.
149 P. 65 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1915)
Ward v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co.
22 Haw. 488 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1915)
Marnan v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
156 Iowa 457 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Farris v. . R. R.
66 S.E. 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Farris v. Southern Railway Co.
66 S.E. 457 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. Bartley
172 F. 82 (Sixth Circuit, 1909)
Dieckmann v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
121 N.W. 676 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Cundieff
171 F. 319 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Rosborough
80 N.E. 869 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1907)
Wilson v. . R. R.
55 S.E. 257 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Wilson v. Railroad
142 N.C. 333 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Scott v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
95 S.W. 490 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Tiffin v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
93 S.W. 564 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1906)
Marden v. Portsmouth, Kittery & York Street Railway
69 L.R.A. 300 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1905)
Ames v. Waterloo & Cedar Falls Rapid Transit Co.
95 N.W. 161 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)