125 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1878), Lovejoy v. Boston & L. R. Corp.

Citation:125 Mass. 79
Opinion Judge:Endicott
Party Name:James A. Lovejoy v. Boston and Lowell Railroad Corporation
Attorney:G. A. Torrey, for the plaintiff. J. H. George, (of New Hampshire,) for the defendant.
Judge Panel:Endicott, J. Colt, J., absent. Lord, J., did not sit.
Case Date:July 19, 1878
Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 79

125 Mass. 79 (Mass. 1878)

James A. Lovejoy


Boston and Lowell Railroad Corporation

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

July 19, 1878

Page 80

[Syllabus Material]

Page 81

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...

To continue reading