Babcock v. Old Colony R. Co.

Decision Date02 January 1890
Citation23 N.E. 325,150 Mass. 467
PartiesBABCOCK v. OLD COLONY R. CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

R.M. Morse, Jr., and Marcus Morton, Jr., for plaintiff.

J.H Benton, Jr., for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was engaged in the performance of his duty. He had a right to expect that the defendant's track would be free from such obstructions as that which caused his injury. He testified at the trial that he did not know the sleepers were there, and did not remember of ever having seen them until he was hurt. If he had never noticed them, or if he had seen them and at the time of the accident failed to remember that they were there, we think it was a question for the jury whether he was in the exercise of due care.

The defendant contends that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. A pile of railroad sleepers had been left within seventeen or eighteen inches of the rails and the yard-master testified that they had been allowed to remain there five weeks. Other witnesses said they had been there only two or three days. It is the duty of a railroad corporation to use reasonable care and diligence to keep its tracks in a safe condition for its employes to work upon. So far as the work of keeping its tracks in repair is left to its servants it is its duty to exercise reasonable supervision to see that the work intrusted to them is properly done. How far into details this supervision must go before the domain which belongs exclusively to the master is passed, and the domain which may be left to servants is entered, depends upon what is reasonable to require of a master who is charged with the duty of providing safe works machinery, tools, and appliances for his employes. In some cases this may be a difficult question to decide. But undoubtedly a jury may find that a railroad corporation should so far supervise the work of its servants, in repairing its tracks, as to see that a pile of sleepers three or four feet wide is not left for a long time within eighteen inches of the rails, in the freight-yard of an important station. The condition of the road, under the circumstances shown, was evidence of negligence of the defendant corporation. Snow v. Railroad Co., 8 Allen, 441; Holden v. Railroad Co. 129 Mass. 268; Elmer v. Locke, 135 Mass. 575; Ferren v. Railroad Co., 143 Mass. 197, 9 N.E. 608; Griffin v. Railroad Co., 148 Mass. 143, 19 N.E. 166.

The next question in the case is whether there was evidence to warrant the judge in submitting to the jury the question whether the section-master was so far charged with the duty of supervision that the defendant might be liable to one of its servants for his negligence. It is well settled that one who is in some things a mere servant may be made the master's agent to perform duties which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Squire
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1890
  • in re Squire
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1890

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