Barden v. Boston, C. & F. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1877
• Citation: 121 Mass. 426
• Parties: John A. Barden v. Boston, Clinton and Fitchburg Railroad Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 426

John A. Barden v. Boston, Clinton and Fitchburg Railroad Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 6, 1877

Bristol. Tort for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while a passenger in a car of the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., who, by consent of the parties, before verdict, reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:

The plaintiff purchased of the defendant a ticket at Attleborough for Taunton, and entered the defendant's train for that city. A short distance before arriving at the station in Taunton, in the daytime, the engine and one passenger car containing passengers for Taunton were switched off on a side track, leaving the car, in which the plaintiff was, to run down the main track and connect with the train from Boston for New Bedford, which was waiting on the track in the station for the train from Attleborough.

The car containing the plaintiff was so carelessly and negligently run into the station as to come in violent collision with the other train standing in the station, and with such force as to throw the plaintiff upon and against the seats and the floor of the car, breaking three of his ribs, inflicting a severe wound on his head, and injuring his left shoulder and arm.

The plaintiff was occupying the seat next the closet on the right side of the car, at the rear end, and, when the approach of the car to the station at Taunton was announced, he arose from his seat and stood in the aisle, preparatory to leaving it when the car should stop, and, while so standing, the collision took place. He stood at the time three or four feet from the door, which was shut, and had not been opened or touched by him.

The defendant contended that the evidence tended to establish the foregoing facts, and that, if so, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, which would preclude his recovery. The plaintiff contended that it was a question for the jury.

If the plaintiff on these facts was guilty of such negligence, as matter of law, as to preclude a recovery, judgment was to be entered for the defendant; but if, on the other hand, the plaintiff, as matter of law, was not guilty of contributory negligence, or if that question was for the jury upon the foregoing facts, then judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 8000 and costs.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

J....