Wheelwright v. Boston & A. R. Co.

Decision Date21 June 1883
Citation135 Mass. 225
PartiesMartha N. Wheelwright v. Boston and Albany Railroad Company
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by being struck by a locomotive engine belonging to the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show the following facts:

The defendant's railroad at Newton consists of two tracks, the southern track being used for trains running toward Boston, and the northern track for trains from Boston. The station building, in which are the ticket-office, baggage-room, etc., is on the south side of the road, and is one hundred and twenty feet long. A platform extends along its front and eastwardly eighty feet to the west side of Centre Street, a highway which crosses the railroad at grade, and westwardly three hundred and twenty-four feet beyond the building, making in all a platform of five hundred and twenty-four feet.

On the north side of the railroad a platform extends from Centre Street westerly to the end of a narrow passageway leading from Washington Street, this platform being five hundred feet long, and its west end being sixty-eight feet east of the west end of the platform on the south side of the railroad. Opposite the station building, and on the north platform, is a shed for the shelter of waiting passengers, twenty-five feet wide and seventy-five feet long, the west end of which is two hundred and eighty feet east of the passageway. Between the shelter shed and the station building are two strips of planking, each ten feet wide and thirty-three feet from each other. The crossing of the railroad and Centre Street is planked. There is no planking across the tracks at any other place, but the tracks are left in the usual condition of railroad tracks, with nothing but rails and sleepers, and not filled up level with the sleepers, and with no preparation of the tracks to fit them for crossing by foot passengers. There was nothing to prevent people from crossing the tracks, except what is herein stated.

Passengers taking trains for stations east of Newton enter the cars from the south platform, and passengers leaving such trains get out upon the south platform. Gates are kept closed on the north side of the cars going toward Boston, so that passengers can neither get on nor off the cars on that side.

Passengers coming from Boston, or taking trains going west, leave or enter the cars by the north platform, and closed gates on the south side of such cars prevent people from leaving or entering such trains on the south side.

Both platforms were raised about a foot above the track. Washington Street runs nearly parallel with the railroad at the distance of about eight rods northerly from it, and connects with Centre Street, so that there is free access, for dwellers on Washington Street, to the station building and the south platform by the highway.

The plaintiff, a woman seventy-two years old, was the holder of a commutation ticket, entitling her to ride to and fro between Newton and Boston. On the day of her injury she started from her house, which was on the south side of Washington Street and immediately west of the passageway already referred to, for the purpose of taking, and in ample time to take, the twenty-three minutes past ten A. M. train for Boston. She passed from Washington Street into and through the passageway, which was narrow, and from which no view of trains coming from the east could be had. Two ladies were a short distance in front of her in the passageway. This passageway ends at a flight of three or four steps which lead to a landing connecting with the end of the north platform, which slopes gradually down to its level, which is about two feet below the general level of the platform. When the plaintiff reached the foot of the steps a freight train was passing westward on the north track,--a regular freight train, as she understood it, about twenty minutes late. She waited there about two minutes until the last car had passed, and then went up the steps, and, standing on the landing, looked eastward to see if any other train were coming. She was familiar with the defendant's time table, and knew when trains were due at Newton, and that no other train was due at that time, and that the rules of the defendant did not permit trains to follow within five minutes of each other. While looking eastward, she saw the ladies who had preceded her in the passageway walking along the north platform. She did not see any train approaching, nor hear any bell or any whistle. While she was looking, she was attracted by the incoming of the train which she was about to take; and, knowing that the rules of the defendant did not permit a train to pass a station while another was passing it, and supposing that no train would approach from the east, she stepped, a moment after, upon the north track, and was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Tomlinson
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1901
    ... ... that he would use due care to keep out of the way of its ... engines and trains. Heinlein v. Boston & P. R. Co ... 147 Mass. 136, 16 N.E. 698 ...          But let ... us suppose that Tomlinson was killed either on his return ... from ... ...
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Martin
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1896
    ... ... impaired, or rendered useless, the other should have been ... used with the greater diligence. Fletcher v. Ry ... Co. 149 Mass. 127; Wheelwright v. Boston, ... &c. R. Co. 135 Mass. 225; Cleveland Ry ... Co. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570; Central R ... Co. v. Feller, 84 Pa. 226; Ry. v ... ...
  • Wallace v. Wilmington & N. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • December 13, 1889
    ... ... Chicago &c ... R. R., 32 Wisc., 524; Hartwig v. Chicago &c. R ... R., 49 Wisc., 358; Mays v. Boston &c. R. R., ... 104 Mass. 137; Alabama &c. R. R. v. Arnold, 35 A. & ... E., 466-475-476; Graynor v. Old Colony R. R., 100 Mass. 208 ... St., 378; Bedell v. Berkey, 43 ... N.W. 308; Howland v. Vincent, 10 Metc., 371; ... Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1; Wheelwright v ... Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 135 Mass. 225; Bancroft ... v. Boston & Worcester R. R. Corp. 97, Mass., 275; ... Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v ... ...
  • St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Martin
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1896
    ...useless, the other should have been used with the greater diligence. Fletcher v. Railway Co., 149 Mass. 127, 21 N. E. 302; Wheel-wright v. Railway Co., 135 Mass. 225; Railway Co. v. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570; Railroad Co. v. Feller, 84 Pa. St. 226; Railway Co. v. Haslan, 33 N. J. Law, 147; Stev......
  • 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