Hale v. Grand Trunk R.R.

Decision Date24 September 1888
Citation15 A. 300,60 Vt. 605
PartiesJOHN O. HALE v. GRAND TRUNK RAILROAD
CourtVermont Supreme Court

MAY TERM, 1888

ACTION on the case for negligence. Heard on an agreed statement June Term, 1887, VEAZEY, J., presiding. Judgment pro forma for the plaintiff, and cause passed to the Supreme Court under section 1390, R. L.

Geo N. Dale, for the defendant.

OPINION
ROSS

By the agreed case, November 2, 1885, the defendant was operating a railway from Portland, Maine, to Canada line, and had a station at Berlin Falls, New Hampshire. As such, it was carrying the mail on its mail trains for the United States government according to the laws of the United States, and pursuant to the conditions and regulations imposed by the post office department, at a fixed compensation. The plaintiff on that evening in attempting to go to its mail train while stopping at the station at Berlin Falls, for the purpose of mailing some letters, in the exercise of due and proper care, fell from an unguarded, and as he claims insufficiently lighted platform, leading from the station to the train, and was injured. By the regulations of the post office department it was then the duty of postal clerks on trains carrying the mail to receive at the cars, among other things from the public, letters on which the postage had been prepaid, and there to sell stamps with which to prepay such postage. Sections 720, 762, Instructions to Railway Postal Clerks. Hence, as a part of the service which the defendant was performing for the government and for which it was receiving compensation from the government, it was under a duty to furnish the public a reasonably safe passage to and from its mail trains while stopping at its regular stations for the purpose of purchasing stamps and mailing such letters. The plaintiff was a member of the public and was attempting to pass over the platform provided by the defendant to the mail train for the lawful purpose of mailing two letters. By accepting the carriage of the mail for the government the defendant became under the duty to furnish him a reasonably safe passage to its mail train for the purpose of mailing his letters. In attempting to pass over the platform to its mail train for this purpose the plaintiff was neither a trespasser, intruder, nor loafer, but was there to transact business which the defendant had undertaken to do with him for a compensation received from the government,--in fact was there at the invitation of the defendant to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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