Craig v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Citation: 118 Mass. 431
• Parties: Mary Craig, executrix, v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company
• Decision Date: 29 September 1875
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

118 Mass. 431

Mary Craig, executrix, v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 29, 1875

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Hampden. Tort for an injury occasioned to Joseph Craig, the plaintiff's testator, by a train of the defendant coming into collision with a wagon, in which he was driving, at a crossing of the railroad and a highway in Springfield. Trial in the Superior Court before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The jury took a view of the premises, and the plaintiff contended that the view disclosed to them that the railroad runs north and south through Springfield, crossing Bridge Street near the centre of the city, which street runs east and west; that the end of a freight house comes within a few feet of the north line of the street; that the crossing is a grade crossing such as is described and referred to in the St. of 1871, c. 352; that in passing along Bridge Street from the east to the west, (as was the deceased in this case,) the tracks of the defendant road are concealed from the view of the traveller upon Bridge Street, and that such traveller cannot see whether trains or engines are approaching from either direction, by reason of such concealments of the tracks by the depot buildings and freight cars of the defendant road, until he gets upon the tracks at the crossing, to the place where the deceased testified he was when he first saw the approaching train; that Bridge Street was a great thoroughfare, the only highway leading across the Connecticut River westward from Springfield; that the crossing is forty-six feet wide east and west, and the street forty-four feet wide; that six tracks cross the street, but that upon the north side of the street, from twelve to twenty tracks are laid, all connected by switches with the tracks that cross the street in such manner that a person upon any of the tracks of the street at the time of day the injury was received in this case, could not tell which track an approaching engine would take in passing over Bridge Street.

The defendant contended that the view disclosed a very different state of facts from that claimed by the plaintiff, but the judge stated that he should make the ruling in view of the claim made by the plaintiff, as to what the view disclosed.

The engine which caused the injury was attached to a regular passenger train going southward, and was upon the west track, which was the regular track for down trains.

The plaintiff put in the deposition of Joseph Craig, the deceased, which was made part of the bill of exceptions, and the material parts of which were as follows: "Between five and six o'clock in the morning of December 22, 1873, I was going to Mittineague with a one horse wagon and a load of meat. There was a wagon ahead of me, and as I got on the first track of the railroad crossing I just saw the engine coming then; so he hurried up, and I thought I could cross too. He got past, and I got caught. Just as the other man got upon the track where the train was coming, a man came out of the lobby with a lantern. There was nobody that I could see in charge of the gates at the crossing, just before the accident; the gates were open, and everything was clear when I started to cross. When I first saw the engine approaching, I was on the first track, that is the track next to Water Street, the horse was on the other one. I first started to look for the cars when I got to Water Street. I saw everything clear then. When I got to the first track, I think there was a freight train standing at the depot, on the first track. I had no knowledge or warning of the coming cars, until I saw them. The reason I crossed was that I saw the gates closed on the opposite side, and I thought the engine was not coming so far. If the gates had been opened, I should not have undertaken to cross. In the first part, when I stated the gates were open, I mean the gates were open on the street, and shut across the track. I meant in the last sentence, the gates were open on the street, and shut across the tracks. I was struck by an engine. I can't say whether there was a car hitched to it or not. It was pretty dark at the time. I saw no person at or about the crossing before the man came out of the lobby with the lantern. I was on the first track when he came out. He made no signal and gave no warning, that I saw. He only ran toward the engine when he came out, and I was struck by the time he got there. The lobby from which he came was on the east side of the track, on the side of Bridge Street near the freight house. When I first saw the engine, I could not have stopped in time to have prevented the accident, for the horse was in front of it, and he was anxious to get away. I was not conscious immediately after being struck. It was most two days afterwards before I could recollect anything."

Cross-examined -- "My horse was walking when I first saw the engine. The engine was close by when I first saw it. It was on the west track, while I was on the east. It was right on the crossing when I first saw it. The horse in front of me was walking. I did not start my horse into a trot before I was struck. He continued walking up to the very time he was struck. When I saw the engine I made no effort to stop my horse, because I thought I could get across easy enough, and safe. If I had not thought I could get across safely, I think I could have stopped my horse. I suppose I could have stopped my...