Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway

125 Mass. 99, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 29
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 24, 1878·Published·Cited by 9 cases

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

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

125 Mass. 99 (Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)