Hartford v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad

68 N.E. 835, 184 Mass. 365, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 1017
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1903
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 68 N.E. 835 (Hartford v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford 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
Hartford v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 68 N.E. 835, 184 Mass. 365, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 1017 (Mass. 1903).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The evidence was ample to show that while the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged in unloading the car he was told by Carruth, the conductor in charge of the crew who were to remove the cars from the side track, to “ look out,” because the cars were to be moved; that upon such information it was the duty of the intestate to take down the steel “brow” which connected the car with the chute in the building; that shortly afterwards the cars were moved in obedience to orders from Carruth, and after they had been moved a few feet the intestate was found caught between the “ brow ” and the building and badly injured. So far the case is plain.

As to many of the other parts of the case the evidence is conflicting, and the defendant stoutly contends that there is nothing [368]*368to show due care of the intestate or gross negligence of the defendant’s servants. While it is true that upon the evidence a strong argument can be made in favor of the defendant, still we are of opinion that in view of the weight, size and shape of the “ brow,” the narrow space between the car and the building, the duty of the intestate upon being warned and the other circumstances of the case, the questions whether sufficient time to remove the “brow” was given to the intestate, whether he proceeded with 'due diligence and skill to the performance of that duty and was injured while thus acting, and whether Carruth was negligent in starting the car without taking more pains to ascertain the situation of the intestate, were for the jury. And in view of the danger to life and limb by a premature moving of the car under the circumstances, the question whether the negligence of Carruth was gross was also for the jury. For cases somewhat analogous in principle to this case as to some of the questions raised, see Thyng v. Fitchburg Railroad, 156 Mass. 13; Maguire v. Fitchburg Railroad, 146 Mass. 379.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Massaletti v. Fitzroy
118 N.E. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Adams v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
214 Mass. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Renaud v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
92 N.E. 710 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Hendrickson v. Wisconsin Central Railway Co.
122 N.W. 758 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1910)
Flynn v. Boston & Maine Railroad
90 N.E. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
McNamara v. Boston & Maine Railroad
89 N.E. 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Mullins v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
87 N.E. 476 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Dimauro v. Linwood Street Railway Co.
85 N.E. 894 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Pearlstein v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad Co.
83 N.E. 1040 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Beale v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.
81 N.E. 867 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Nauss v. Boston & Maine Railroad
81 N.E. 280 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Hale v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
76 N.E. 656 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 N.E. 835, 184 Mass. 365, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-mass-1903.