168 Mass. 261 (1897), Olsen v. Andrews

Citation168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90
Opinion JudgeKNOWLTON, J.
Party NameOLSEN v. ANDREWS.
Attorney[47 N.E. 90] Gargan & Keating, for plaintiff. Alfred Hemenway and Dickson & Knowles, for defendant.
Case DateMay 18, 1897
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 261

168 Mass. 261 (1897)

47 N.E. 90

OLSEN

v.

ANDREWS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1897

COUNSEL

[47 N.E. 90] Gargan &

Page 262

Keating, for plaintiff.

Alfred Hemenway and Dickson & Knowles, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

At the close of the testimony the presiding justice ruled that there was no evidence to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, and directed a verdict for the defendant. There was evidence that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. According to the testimony, all the men employed by the defendant boarded on the west side of [47 N.E. 91] the Hudson river, while their work was upon a bridge crossing the river, and a part of it at the east end of the bridge. The only way from the plaintiff's work to his boarding place was over the bridge on the northerly, or west-bound, track, which was given up by the railroad company to the defendant for his use while repairing the bridge. It was against the rules to ride on the derrick car, and he was obliged to walk. He had been to his dinner on the west side of the river, and was returning over the bridge, when the derrick car came up behind him, and ran over him. The engineer who was running the derrick car had been working with his car on or about the bridge at least five days, and may be presumed to have known that the men were accustomed to walk back and forth across the bridge at the dinner hour. The bridge was 60 or 70 feet above water. The southerly, or east-bound, track was used at the time by the railroad company for its trains going in both directions. When the plaintiff entered upon the bridge at the west end, there were four men crossing over before

Page 263

him. A freight train came behind him on the southerly track, and was passing by his side, when the derrick car came up, so that it was impossible to step across to that track. When he saw the derrick car coming, it was moving at the rate of about 12 miles an hour, and he started to run as fast as he could towards the end of the bridge, and got nearly to the end of it, when the car overtook him. The only other thing that he could have done was to get down between the ties, and climb upon the timbers which constituted the frame of the bridge, and hold on there while the car passed above him. To do this quickly would have been difficult, and not free from danger. He well might suppose that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • 125 P. 331 (Idaho 1912), Neil v. Idaho & Washington Northern Railroad
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 4, 1912
    ...Boston & A. R. Co., 162 Mass. 287, 38 N.E. 500; Appel v. Buffalo, N.Y. & P. R. Co., 111 N.Y. 550, 19 N.E. 93; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90.) There can be no recovery under the pretended doctrine of last clear chance, or on any other theory, unless there was wilfulness......
  • 77 A. 537 (Me. 1910), Robbins v. Lewiston A. & W. St. Ry.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • August 15, 1910
    ...it. See Cox v. Central Vermont R. R., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N.E. 97; Ledwidge v. Hathaway, 170 Mass. 348, 49 N.E. 656; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90; Peaslee v. Fitchburg, 152 Mass. 155, 25 N.E. 71. It should be observed, however, that the court stood squarely upon the original do......
  • 122 N.W. 456 (Minn. 1909), 16,185, Thomas v. Wisconsin Central Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • July 23, 1909
    ...13 Ind.App. 485, 41 N.E. 1051; Blovelt v. Sawyer [1904] 1 K.B. 271; Heldmaier v. Cobbs, 195 Ill. 172, 62 N.E. 853; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90; Boldt v. New York, 18 N.Y. 432. Numerous other cases to the same effect are cited in the note referred to. The case of Olson v. Min......
  • 35 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1949), 34723 and 34727, Breimhorst v. Beckman
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • January 14, 1949
    ...Co., 194 S.C. 50, 9 S.E.2d 35. [11] Prosser, Torts, s 10, p. 52; Restatement, Torts, s 13, Comment d; White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 N.E. 90. [12] Biggs v. Donovan-Corkery Logging Co., 185 Wash. 284, 54 P.2d 235; Delthony v. Standard Furniture Co., 119 Wash. 298, 205 P. 379; Heikkila v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • 125 P. 331 (Idaho 1912), Neil v. Idaho & Washington Northern Railroad
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 4, 1912
    ...Boston & A. R. Co., 162 Mass. 287, 38 N.E. 500; Appel v. Buffalo, N.Y. & P. R. Co., 111 N.Y. 550, 19 N.E. 93; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90.) There can be no recovery under the pretended doctrine of last clear chance, or on any other theory, unless there was wilfulness......
  • 77 A. 537 (Me. 1910), Robbins v. Lewiston A. & W. St. Ry.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
    • August 15, 1910
    ...it. See Cox v. Central Vermont R. R., 170 Mass. 129, 49 N.E. 97; Ledwidge v. Hathaway, 170 Mass. 348, 49 N.E. 656; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90; Peaslee v. Fitchburg, 152 Mass. 155, 25 N.E. 71. It should be observed, however, that the court stood squarely upon the original do......
  • 122 N.W. 456 (Minn. 1909), 16,185, Thomas v. Wisconsin Central Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • July 23, 1909
    ...13 Ind.App. 485, 41 N.E. 1051; Blovelt v. Sawyer [1904] 1 K.B. 271; Heldmaier v. Cobbs, 195 Ill. 172, 62 N.E. 853; Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, 47 N.E. 90; Boldt v. New York, 18 N.Y. 432. Numerous other cases to the same effect are cited in the note referred to. The case of Olson v. Min......
  • 35 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1949), 34723 and 34727, Breimhorst v. Beckman
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • January 14, 1949
    ...Co., 194 S.C. 50, 9 S.E.2d 35. [11] Prosser, Torts, s 10, p. 52; Restatement, Torts, s 13, Comment d; White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 N.E. 90. [12] Biggs v. Donovan-Corkery Logging Co., 185 Wash. 284, 54 P.2d 235; Delthony v. Standard Furniture Co., 119 Wash. 298, 205 P. 379; Heikkila v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results