Bachant v. Boston & M.R.r.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1905
• Parties: BACHANT v. BOSTON & M. R. R.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

187 Mass. 392

73 N.E. 642

BACHANT v. BOSTON & M. R. R.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

March 1, 1905

COUNSEL

Walter R. Dame and Amos T. Saunders, for plaintiff.

Chas M. Thayer and Alex H. Bullock, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

This is an action of tort to recover for injuries to the plaintiff's harnesses, horses, and wagon, alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence while unloading grain from a car at its station in the town of Weston.

The defendant had not provided a freight-house for the storage of merchandise, and apparently consignees were expected, on receiving notice that consignments were ready for delivery to unload their goods directly from the cars. In accordance with this system of dealing, the transportation of the grain could not be considered as ended, or the carrier released by delivery, until the consignees had been notified and the car placed where it could be conveniently unloaded by them. Thomas v. Boston & Providence R. R., 10 Metc. 472 477, 43 Am. Dec. 444; Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 1 Gray, 263, 272, 61 Am. Dec. 423; Kimball v. Western Railroad, 6 Gray, 542, 543; Rice v. Boston & Worcester R. R., 98 Mass. 212; Rice v. Hart, 118 Mass. 201, 208, 19 Am. Rep. 432; Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railroad, 72 Iowa, 535, 34 N.W. 320, 2 Am. St. Rep. 258. By the location and arrangement of the defendant's tracks, to do this the car had been run onto a spur track so located that it could be reached and unloaded only from one side. To reach the car, it was necessary to back a team into a triangular space between this spur track and a side track, which connected at each end with the main track, and was used to enable trains meeting at the station to pass each other. This space was shown by the testimony to be from 10 to 13 feet wide at the end near the highway, and gradually narrowing until it reached a point where the spur track joined the side track. The plaintiff, who was under a contract with the consignees to unload the grain, sent his servant Coté, with a team and the freight bill, to the station. Upon delivery of the freight bill to the station agent, who for this purpose represented the defendant, Coté testified that this conversation took place: 'He showed me a car, and told me to back up there. It was all right.' In connection with the duty imposed on the defendant, Coté was justified in relying upon this statement as an assurance that the place where the grain was to be unloaded was safe. Two loads were taken out the first day without accident, but on the morning of the second day, when, for the purpose of getting the third load, the wagon and horses were placed between the tracks with the wagon close to the side of the car and opposite the door, they were struck and damaged by one of the locomotives of the defendant that was passing over the side track. On this evidence the jury could have found that they were properly there with the knowledge and direction of the defendant's agent, and that, in backing up to the car in the manner described, as safe a position was taken as any that could have been occupied at the time of the accident. It could have been further found that in placing the car so that it could have been unloaded they would be liable to be struck by passing trains, and that a proper place for the delivery of the grain had not been provided. Under its contract as a common carrier, the defendant was required to provide a safe and proper place for delivery. Jewell v. Grand Trunk Railway, 55 N.H. 84, 91. Independence Mills Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. R., ubi supra; Anchor Mills Co. v. Burlington R. R., 102 Iowa, 262, 71 N.W. 255.

The plaintiff, or his servant, while unloading, was not obliged to be in a state of continual apprehension that locomotives or cars might run over the side track and come into collision with the team, nor was he required constantly to observe the track to avoid such a collision. But he had the right to assume that while thus engaged, at a place designated by the defendant, he would not be subjected to injury in person or property by its negligence. Pratt v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R R., 187 Mass. 5, 72 N.E. 328. Neither the consignees nor those lawfully acting for them were obliged thus to take the chance of injury, and they were entitled, while at work in the place prescribed by the defendant, to be free from the danger of being run dowm by trains in its control. Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport R. R., 10 Allen, 368, 372, 87 Am. Dec. 644; Hathaway v. N. Y., N.H. & H. R. R., 182 Mass. 286, 65 N.E. 387, and cases cited. After having placed the car, then, to run its locomotive so that it came into collision with the team was evidence of negligence in the management of its business at the station. Both acts showed a breach of duty towards the...