O'Neill v. Lynn & Boston Railroad

29 N.E. 630, 155 Mass. 371, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 322
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 8, 1892·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

The only questions raised in this case are in regard to the admission in evidence of a rule of the defendant corporation for the conduct of its drivers, in these words: “ Do not allow an intoxicated person upon the front platform under any circumstances,” and to the admission in evidence of the following placard posted in the car : “ Notice. All persons are forbidden to be on the front platform of this car; and this company will not be responsible for their safety there.”

Both the rule and the notice were properly admitted in evidence. A railway corporation which is a carrier of passengers may make all reasonable regulations for the safety and comfort of its passengers. Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Met. 596. O’Brien v. Boston & Worcester Railroad, 15 Gray, 20. Wills v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 129 Mass. 351. The rule and the notice were both reasonable. Wills v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, ubi supra.

Where the defendant seeks to justify the conduct of its servant, as in this case, it is not necessary to show that either the rule or the notice was known to the plaintiff. O’Brien v. Boston & Worcester Railroad, ubi supra. Cheney v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 11 Met. 121, 123. It is only when it is attempted to charge a person with a liability created by a notice or rule, that it is necessary to bring home knowledge of it to him. 11 Met. 123.

If the evidence was admissible for any purpose, without showing that the plaintiff had knowledge of the rule or the notice, the plaintiff has no ground of exception, and it is unnecessary to consider the charge, to which no exception was taken. We have, however, no doubt that the fact that the plaintiff had ridden upon the defendant’s cars was some evidence that he had knowledge of the notice, and that, if the jury found that he had such knowledge, they might consider the notice as bearing upon the .conduct of the plaintiff. Baltimore Passenger Railway v. Wilkinson, 30 Md. 224.

.Exceptions overruled.

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

O'Neill v. Lynn & Boston Railroad, 29 N.E. 630, 155 Mass. 371, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 322 (Mass. 1892).

29 N.E. 630 (O'Neill v. Lynn & Boston Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peizer v. City of Seattle
24 P.2d 444 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)
Renaud v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
97 N.E. 98 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Hull v. Boston & Maine Railroad
96 N.E. 58 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Cutts v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
89 N.E. 21 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
McDonough v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
78 N.E. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Sweetland v. Lynn & Boston Railroad
51 L.R.A. 783 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Commonwealth v. Jones
54 N.E. 869 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
O'Laughlin v. Boston & Maine Railroad
41 N.E. 121 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Floytrup v. Boston & Maine Railroad
39 N.E. 797 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Jackson v. Grand Avenue Railway Co.
24 S.W. 192 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)