Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway

125 Mass. 99, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 29
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJuly 24, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 125 Mass. 99 (Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway) 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
Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway, 125 Mass. 99, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 29 (Mass. 1878).

Opinion

Morton, J.

The plaintiff was injured by a collision at the depot at Detroit Junction. He testified that the train in which he was riding was running at an unusual rate of speed, and that for five miles before it reached Detroit Junction it was “ racing with a train on the Michigan Southern road, which was parallel with the defendant’s road and was in sight all the way.” We are of opinion that the question proposed by the defendant to its conductor, whether the train was running at the usual speed at this point, should not have been excluded. It is true that the fact that the defendant was running at the usual rate of speed would not be a defence, unless it appeared that such rate was a safe and proper rate of speed; but the testimony excluded would contradict the plaintiff’s testimony, and would tend strongly to show that the train was not racing with the train on the parallel road. It thus bore upon a question which would undoubtedly be influential with the jury in deciding the issue of the defendant’s negligence.

We see no ground of objection to the other rulings at the trial. The question, whether the plaintiff was using due care, was a question for the jury, and was submitted to them with instructions which were sufficiently favorable to the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Randall v. Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad
289 Mass. 241 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
McCrea v. Beverly Gas & Electric Co.
104 N.E. 365 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Young v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co.
100 N.E. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Larson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
98 N.E. 1048 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
McDermott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
94 N.E. 309 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Weinschenk v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
76 N.E. 662 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Cody v. New York & New England Railroad
7 L.R.A. 843 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Clark
42 N.W. 703 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1889)
Peverly v. City of Boston
136 Mass. 366 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 Mass. 99, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthen-v-grand-trunk-railway-mass-1878.