Lynam v. Union Railway Co.

114 Mass. 83
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1873·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The testimony introduced on the part of the plaintiff, upon which alone, as the defendants properly admit, this case is to be determined, laid before the jury all the circumstances attending the accident, and warranted them in finding that he was in the exercise of due care, and would not have been injured but for the negligence of the defendants’ servants. Mayo [88]*88v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 104 Mass. 137. Smith v. Gardner, 11 Gray, 418. . The cases relating to injuries suffered by being struck by a locomotive engine at a railroad crossing afford no test of the degree of care required of the plaintiff in this case. The cars of a horse railway have not the same right to the use of the track over which they travel, do not run at the same speed, are not attended with the same danger, and are not so difficult to check quickly and suddenly, as those of an ordinary railroad corporation. A person lawfully travelling upon the highway is not therefore bound to exercise the same degree of watchfulness and attention to avoid the one as to keep himself out of the way of the other.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Lynam v. Union Railway Co., 114 Mass. 83 (Mass. 1873).

114 Mass. 83 (Lynam v. Union Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Dunnam
1928 OK 57 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Dow v. Des Moines City Railway Co.
126 N.W. 918 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
Smith v. Johnson
3 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 8 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1904)
Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott
34 A. 1094 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1896)
Cincinnati Street Ry. Co. v. Snell
54 Ohio St. (N.S.) 197 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1896)
Eckington & Soldiers' Home Railroad v. Hunter
6 App. D.C. 287 (D.C. Circuit, 1895)
Lake Roland Elevated Railway Co. v. McKewen
31 A. 797 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1895)
Hicks v. Citizens' Railway Co.
25 L.R.A. 508 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Muncie Street Railway Co. v. Maynard
32 N.E. 343 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)
Shea v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
52 N.W. 902 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)
Dahlberg v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.
21 N.W. 545 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)
Shapleigh v. Wyman
134 Mass. 118 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Bowser v. Wellington
126 Mass. 391 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)