Copson v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.

• Citation: 171 Mass. 233,50 N.E. 613
• Parties: COPSON v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.
• Decision Date: 20 May 1898
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

171 Mass. 233

50 N.E. 613

COPSON v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 20, 1898

COUNSEL

Trull &amp Weir, for plaintiff.

Benton & Choate and P.H. Cooney, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The defendant excepted to the refusal to rule that the plaintiff could not recover. The defendant's passenger express train ran into the end of an accommodation train as it was on the point of moving away from the station at Hyde Park at about half past 5 o'clock in the afternoon of October 24 1895. The occurrence of such an accident, unexplained, is some evidence of negligence of the defendant or its servants. White v. Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 404, 11 N.E. 552; Mahoney v. Railroad Co., 160 Mass. 573-579, 36 N.E 588; Hennessy v. City of Boston, 161 Mass. 502, 37 N.E. 668.

There was evidence to warrant a finding that the plaintiff was a passenger on the express train at the time of the accident. A witness testified that plaintiff was at Pawtucket R.I., on that day, and went with the witness to take a train for Boston, which left at half past 3 o'clock, but was late for that, although in time for the train which left at a quarter past 4 or 25 minutes past 4 o'clock. The witness said that he did not see the plaintiff get on the train, as he was about 50 or 100 feet from him, but saw him "getting hold of the last rail of the car, and he must have got onto the train." Within a few minutes after the accident which happened to this train at Hyde Park he was seen at the station there by several passengers. None of them knew him, but from their testimony, and the testimony of other witnesses who saw him that evening at Lowell, where he resided, there can be little doubt in regard to his identity.

There was testimony that when he left Pawtucket on that day he was in perfect health, and that he had always been in good health previously. There was testimony from numerous witnesses tending to show that he was in a peculiar mental condition at Hyde Park. He had a wound on his hand and one or two slight bruises on his head. The physician who attended him there said that he was weak, trembling, nauseated, and in a cold perspiration, his pulse slow, and the pupils of his eyes unusually dilated. He seemed dazed, and refused to give his name. The evidence tended to show that his subsequent physical and mental condition was such that at the time of the trial it would have endangered his life to leave home and come to court, and that if he could have been present it would have been impossible for him to testify. The evidence well warranted a finding that his condition was caused by an injury received at the time of the collision at Hyde Park.

The defendant contends that there was no evidence that he was in the exercise of due care, inasmuch as no witness remembers seeing him from the time when he parted with his friend at Pawtucket until he was in the station at Hyde Park. But the conductor testified to going through the train and taking up the tickets of the passengers seven times between Pawtucket and Hyde Park, and said that all the passengers had paid their fares before the accident. He did not remember seeing the plaintiff. This is evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was in a proper place, and was conducting himself as careful passengers ordinarily do. Otherwise he would have been likely to attract the attention of the conductor, or of others on the train through whom the conductor would have received information of his conduct. There is a class of cases in which due care may be inferred from the absence of negligence as well...