Clark v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 11 November 1879 |
Citation | 128 Mass. 1 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Philip Clark v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company |
Argued November 14, 1878 [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by being struck by a car, run and managed by the defendant over the track of the Eastern Railroad Company, at or near the place where said track crosses Saratoga Street at grade in Boston. Trial in this court, before Morton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
The plaintiff was a flagman, employed and paid by the Eastern Railroad Company, upon an understanding between that company and the defendant that the former should provide such flagman, and his duty was to watch the track and give notice when any cars or locomotives, whether of said company or of the defendant, were about to cross the street. There was a small building called a flag-house, situated near the side of Saratoga Street, south of the same, and east of the railroad with a door fronting on the railroad, and windows on each side. The accident occurred about ten or eleven o'clock in the forenoon of a cold day in December. The train in question consisted of a locomotive and three oil cars, the latter being plain, uncovered platform-cars without sides each having on it a tank about three to four feet high cylinder-shaped, and appearing somewhat like a steam-boiler. The cars approached from the north, from the direction of Revere, and, as the plaintiff walked from Saratoga Street to the flag-house, they came behind him, partly towards his left side, and struck him, causing the injuries complained of.
Patrick Rowe testified as follows:
Richard Welsh testified as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aluminum Company of North America v. Ramsey
...should be done at the time. He ought not to recover for an injury resulting from his own want of care. Labatt on Master & Servant, § 333; 128 Mass. 1; 89 Ala. 24; 64 Ill.App. 359; 45 Ark. 325; 53 F. 61; 86 Ark. 65. 2. The failure of plaintiff to keep a lookout on the moving cars charged him......
-
Trihay v. Brooklyn Lead Mining Co.
... ... 243; McGlynn v. Brodie, 31 Cal. 377; Leary v ... Boston &c. R. R. Co., 139 Mass. 580, 584; Schofield ... v. Chicago &c. R. R. , 114 U.S. 615; Railroad Co ... v. Aspell, 23 Pa. St., 147; Aldridge v. Midland ... Co., 78 Mo ... Co., 29 Conn. 548; ... Sweeney v. C. P. R. R. Co., 57 Cal. 15; Clark v ... Boston & A. R. R. Co., 128 Mass. 1; Gildersleve v ... R. R. Co., ... ...
-
Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. Crow
... ... 114; Missouri P. R. Co. v ... Moseley, 57 F. 922; Burns v. Boston & L. R ... Co., 101 Mass. 50; Clark v. Boston & A. R. Co., ... 128 ... circumstances, upon the premises of a railroad company, ... awaiting an opportunity to board his train, is still a ... ...
-
White v. East Side Mill & Lumber Co.
...jury could have found otherwise from the evidence. The facts in the case at bar differ widely from those in the cases of Clark v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 128 Mass. 1, Loettker v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 150 Ill.App. 69, cited by the defendant. From the two decisions cited the only variance......