Dillon v. Connecticut River R. Co.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: HOLMES, J.
• Citation: Dillon v. Connecticut River R. Co., 154 Mass. 478, 28 N.E. 899 (Mass. 1891)
• Decision Date: 24 October 1891
• Parties: DILLON v. CONNECTICUT RIVER R. CO.

154 Mass. 478

28 N.E. 899

DILLON v. CONNECTICUT RIVER R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 24, 1891

COUNSEL

T.B. O'Donnel, for plaintiff.

George M. Stearns and Wells, McClench & Barnes, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

This is an action under Pub.St. c. 112, § 212, for causing the death of the plaintiff's intestate, Dacey. Dacey was killed by a train running off the track while he was in a water-closet, which there was evidence tending to show to have been built without right within the defendant's location. The jury were instructed that if Dacey was a trespasser the defendant owed him no duty beyond abstaining from reckless or wanton conduct towards him. The jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted. If Dacey had been on the defendant's track, there is no question that the ruling would have been right. McCreary v. Railroad Co., (Mass.) 26 N.E. 864. The ground of the decision cited is that the statute does not abolish the common-law rule embodied in the instruction, and that rule applies with equal force to trespassers anywhere within the location. Whether this construction of the statute be reached by a broad interpretation of the exception of people "being upon [the defendant's] road contrary to law," which qualifies the civil as well as the criminal liability, (see St.1881, c. 199, § 1,) or by reading in an exception implied by common sense, does not matter, for the purposes of this case, (Taylor v. Manufacturing Co., 143 Mass....