Sullivan v. Boston & Albany Railroad

31 N.E. 128, 156 Mass. 378, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 226
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 9, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 31 N.E. 128 (Sullivan v. Boston & Albany 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
Sullivan v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 31 N.E. 128, 156 Mass. 378, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 226 (Mass. 1892).

Opinion

Barker, J.

It is useless to discuss the plaintiff’s exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, or to the refusal to submit the question of the due care of the plaintiff’s intestate to the jury, as in any aspect of the case, if the plaintiff’s intestate was not a trespasser, which we do not decide, he was at most a mere licensee, and so far as he was concerned the defendant had a right to arrange and use its property in any lawful manner, and owed him no duty with respect to it, except to refrain froni setting a trap for him, and from doing him intentional or wanton harm. Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen, 368, 372. Metcalfe v. Cunard Steamship Co. 147 Mass. 66. Heinlein v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 147 Mass. 136. Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267. Daniels v. New York & New England Railroad, 154 Mass. 349, 354. Redigan v. Roston & Maine Railroad, 155 Mass. 44. The live electric wire with which the deceased came in contact was a lawful apparatus, used in the ordinary business of the defendant, and was not designed as a trap. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Urban v. Central Massachusetts Electric Co.
17 N.E.2d 718 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Key West Electric Co. v. Roberts
89 So. 122 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
City of Shreveport v. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co.
82 So. 785 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1919)
Papich v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
183 Iowa 601 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Anderson v. Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad
130 N.W. 391 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Wetherby's Admr. v. Twin State Gas Co.
75 A. 8 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1910)
Minneapolis General Electric Co. v. Cronon
166 F. 651 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. Price
159 F. 330 (First Circuit, 1908)
Dalin v. Worcester Consolidated Street Railway Co.
74 N.E. 597 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Perham v. Portland Electric Co.
40 L.R.A. 799 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co.
44 A. 809 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1897)
Grindley v. McKechnie
40 N.E. 764 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 N.E. 128, 156 Mass. 378, 1892 Mass. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-boston-albany-railroad-mass-1892.