Sullivan v. Fitchburg Railroad

36 N.E. 751, 161 Mass. 125, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 142
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 27, 1894·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The bill of exceptions states that it appeared in evidence that it was a part of the duty of trackmen to look out for wild trains, and that they had no other means of protection except to take care of themselves. We do not regard this statement as qualified by the defendant’s rule that wild trains “ must run cautiously around curves and over grade crossings, looking out for trackmen,” but accept the interpretation put upon the rule by the defendant’s counsel, that the caution has reference to the safety of the train, not of the trackmen. In this case the other persons on the hand-car escaped, and why the deceased failed to do so does not appear. In the opinion of a majority of the court we cannot say that he was subjected to any danger beyond that of which he took the risk. Shepard v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 158 Mass. 174. Lynch v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 159 Mass. 536.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Sullivan v. Fitchburg Railroad, 36 N.E. 751, 161 Mass. 125, 1894 Mass. LEXIS 142 (Mass. 1894).

36 N.E. 751 (Sullivan v. Fitchburg Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hietala v. Boston & Albany Railroad
3 N.E.2d 377 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Pacheco v. New York, N. H. & H. R.
15 F.2d 467 (Second Circuit, 1926)
Casey v. Boston & Maine Railroad
231 Mass. 529 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Porter v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
96 N.E. 680 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Hourigan v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
79 N.E. 738 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Morris v. Boston & Maine Railroad
68 N.E. 680 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Tumalty v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
49 N.E. 85 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)