Stewart v. Boston & Providence Railroad

16 N.E. 466, 146 Mass. 605, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 303
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 4, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 16 N.E. 466 (Stewart v. Boston & Providence 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
Stewart v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 16 N.E. 466, 146 Mass. 605, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 303 (Mass. 1888).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

The plaintiff took the wrong train through his own fault. After the train had started, the conductor discovered this, and informed the plaintiff that he could not stop at the point to which he wished to go, but that, by taking one of the two rear cars, he could get off at a station beyond, and return to his destination at a later hour. _ This was not a command or direction by the conductor that the plaintiff should go from the car he was in to the rear ear, which justified him in doing so at the risk of the defendant. In going from one car to another of a rapidly moving train, merely for his own convenience, the plaintiff took upon himself the risk of all accidents not arising from any negligence of the defendant. While crossing over one of the platforms between the cars, the plaintiff came in collision with another passenger crossing the platform in an opposite direction, “ the train gave a lurch to the left,” and he was thrown from the platform. There is nothing to show that the lurch was extraordinary, or anything more than a usual and inevitable incident of a swiftly moving train. The evidence fails to show any negligence of the defendant which caused the accident, and the Superior Court therefore rightly directed a verdict for the defendant. Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

Ottinger v. Detroit United Railway
131 N.W. 528 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Sullivan v. Capital Traction Co.
34 App. D.C. 358 (D.C. Circuit, 1910)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Pollock
123 S.W. 790 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)
De Yoe v. Seattle Electric Co.
102 P. 446 (Washington Supreme Court, 1909)
McGann v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
85 N.E. 570 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Patillo
101 S.W. 492 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1907)
Spooner v. Old Colony Street Railway Co.
76 N.E. 660 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Fitch v. Mason City & Clear Lake Traction Co.
100 N.W. 618 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Saxton v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
72 S.W. 717 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Bartley v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
49 S.W. 840 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Choate v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railway Co.
37 S.W. 319 (Texas Supreme Court, 1896)
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Clowes
24 S.E. 833 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1896)
Harbison v. Metropolitan Railroad
9 App. D.C. 60 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1896)
McAfee v. Huidekoper
9 App. D.C. 36 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1896)
Holland v. West End Street Railway Co.
29 N.E. 622 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Dewire v. Boston & Maine Railroad
2 L.R.A. 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 N.E. 466, 146 Mass. 605, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-boston-providence-railroad-mass-1888.