Lovejoy v. Boston & L. R. Corp.

Decision Date19 July 1878
PartiesJames A. Lovejoy v. Boston and Lowell Railroad Corporation
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant as a locomotive engineer. Answer, a general denial. Trial in this court, before Endicott, J., who reported the case for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff testified that, at the time of the accident, he was running a passenger train from Lowell to Boston; that at Winchester, a station on the defendant's road, it was the custom to detach cars from the rear of the train, and leave them at that point; that this was accomplished by starting the train and running a short distance, then shutting off steam so that the brakeman could pull the pin and detach the cars, and then the conductor was accustomed to pull the cord attached to a bell upon the locomotive, as a signal for the train to proceed; that sometimes the bell would not ring that on the morning of the accident the plaintiff shut off steam, but the signal-bell was not sounded; that he looked through the window of the cab, saw no obstruction, and stepped upon the projection of the tender-frame, and leaned over outside of the locomotive, holding on to the side of the locomotive with his hands, for the purpose of obtaining a signal from the conductor (namely, the waving of his hand as he stood on the platform between the cars); that when he leaned from the side of the locomotive, the back of his head and neck, immediately behind the ear, came in contact with the post hereafter described, and he was thrown from the locomotive and received the injuries complained of; that engineers were in the habit of looking for a signal in this way, and it was a proper course of action; that the morning was cold and frosty, and the cab-window was covered with frost from the escaping steam from a small leak in the dome of the locomotive, but he wiped it off so that he could see out; and that it was too cold to run with the window open. On cross-examination, he testified that he recollected nothing after beginning to lean over outside of the locomotive, and he could not tell whether he intended to look back at once for the signal, or first to look ahead for obstructions.

It appeared that, the fall before the accident, which occurred in January, the defendant erected upon the line of its railroad, between Winchester and Boston, Hall's electric signals, but, at the time of the accident, they had not been fully completed and put in operation. The signal-post against which the plaintiff struck was about twelve feet in height and ten inches square, having on its top a circular signal-box, about three feet in diameter, intended to display a signal to the engineer of any obstruction upon the track. It was placed three feet and eight inches from the main track on which the plaintiff was running, and half-way between that track and a parallel side-track; and there was nothing to obstruct the view of it for nearly half a mile up or down the track in either direction.

The plaintiff further testified that he was a spare runner taking the place of the regular engineers on the various roads operated by the defendant, as occasion required; and that he had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
94 cases
  • Leach v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1905
    ... ... 9 Colo. 159, 11 P. 50; Craven v. Smith, 89 Wis. 119, ... 61 N.W. 317; Taylor-Craig Corp. v. Hoge, 69 F. 581; ... U. P. R. R. v. Monden, 50 Kan. 539, 31 P. 1002; ... Haley v. Jump ... R. R. v. Spoeleder, 90 Ill.App ... 590; Boyd v. Harris, 176 Pa. 486, 35 A. 222; ... Lovejoy v. Boston & R. R. Corp., 125 Mass. 79, 28 ... Am. Rep. 206; Thain v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 161 ... ...
  • Merrill v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1905
    ... ... Cent. P., 79 ... Cal. 97; Potter v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 136 N.Y ... 77; Young v. Boston & Me. R. R., 46 N.E. 624.) ... We ... first submit, therefore, that the defendants ... 601; ... Ladd v. New Bedford R. R. Co., 119 Mass. 412; s. c., ... 20 Am. Rep. 331; Lovejoy v. Boston & Me. R. R., 125 ... Mass. 79; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 206; Titus v. Bradford, B. & ... K ... ...
  • Potter v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1899
    ... ... may be of interest ... [81 N.W. 82] ... In ... Massachusetts, in Lovejoy v. Railroad Co., 125 Mass ... 79, it appeared that a signal post was placed three feet and ... ...
  • Alcorn v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1891
    ... ... Cases 249; Moulton v. Gage , 138 Mass. 390; Ladd ... v. Railroad , 119 Mass. 412; Lovejoy v ... Railroad , 125 Mass. 79; Hulett v. Railroad , 67 ... Mo. 239; Smith v. Railroad , 69 Mo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT