Lovejoy v. Boston & Lowell Railroad

125 Mass. 79, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 21
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJuly 19, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by52 cases

This text of 125 Mass. 79 (Lovejoy v. Boston & Lowell 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
Lovejoy v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 125 Mass. 79, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 21 (Mass. 1878).

Opinion

Endicott, J.

The plaintiff was in the employment of the defendant as a locomotive engineer. The electric signal-posts, against one of which the plaintiff struck when leaning outside his locomotive and looking back, to take a signal from the conductor, were placed three feet and eight inches from the track, and were two feet and a half from the outside of a passing locomotive. They were conspicuous objects ten feet in height, with a signal-box on top, three feet in diameter, and the post in question was visible for nearly half a mile in either direction. The abutments of forty-six bridges, numerous buildings, entrances to stations and other structures on the line of the defendant’s road, were the same distance from the track. These facts were known to the plaintiff, though he testified that he had not, previously to his alleged injury, noticed this particular post. The only negligence imputed to the defendant was in placing this post so near the track.

As between the plaintiff and the defendant, it was immaterial whether it would have been more prudent to have placed the signal-posts, abutments of bridges and other structures, so numerous on the 'line of the defendant’s road, more than three feet and eight inches from the track. If there was any danger to the plaintiff, while in the performance of his duty, from the structures thus placed, it was a risk he had assumed. He knew the manner in which the road was constructed, the proximity to the track of these structures, and the methods employed in the management of the trains. The defendant had the right to construct its road and conduct its business in this manner, and, as was said in Ladd v. New Bedford Railroad, 119 Mass. 412, “ is [83]*83not liable to one of its servants, ‘who is capable of contracting for himself, and knows the danger attending the business in the manner in which it is conducted, for an injury resulting therefrom.” Judgment for the defendant.

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

Related

Miller v. Western Pac. R. Co.
274 P. 945 (Utah Supreme Court, 1929)
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. McOsker
88 N.E. 950 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
Bradley v. Central Vermont Railway Co.
82 N.E. 44 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Burchard
35 Colo. 539 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1906)
Dunn v. Oregon Short Line Railroad
80 P. 311 (Utah Supreme Court, 1905)
Fearns v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
72 N.E. 68 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Withee v. Somerset Traction Co.
56 A. 204 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)
Morrisette v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
52 A. 520 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1902)
Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. Healy
100 Ill. App. 586 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Donahue v. Boston & Maine Railroad
59 N.E. 663 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Hall v. Wakefield & Stoneham Street Railway Co.
178 Mass. 98 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Epperson v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co.
50 S.W. 795 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Potter v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.
122 Mich. 179 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Phelps v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.
122 Mich. 171 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Quinn v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad
77 N.W. 464 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Davis v. Forbes
47 L.R.A. 170 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
West v. Southern Pac. Co.
85 F. 392 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Allen v. Boston & Maine Railroad
39 A. 978 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1897)
Ryan v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
47 N.E. 877 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Murch v. Thomas Wilson's Sons & Co.
47 N.E. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 Mass. 79, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovejoy-v-boston-lowell-railroad-mass-1878.