Eaton v. New York, N.H &H.R.R.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1917
• Citation: 116 N.E. 815,227 Mass. 113
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: EATON v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. R.

227 Mass. 113

116 N.E. 815

EATON

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

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 26, 1917.

Report from Superior Court, Norfolk County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.

Action by Clementine M. Eaton against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. Verdict ordered for defendant, and case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment for defendant on the verdict.

H. B. Mackintosh, of Needham, for plaintiff.

Jos. Wentworth, of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while upon the platform of one of the cars of the defendant. The accident occurred at the South Terminal Station in Boston, on the evening of December 24, 1912. There was evidence that there was a snowstorm that night; and that it had been storming all day which had interfered with the operation of trains. There was also evidence that there was a large crowd at the station that night.

The plaintiff testified that she boarded the 8:45 train from Boston to go to her home in Needham; that she waited until everybody had gotten upon the car and then proceeded up the steps and got on the platform; that there was a woman and little girl upon the platform at that time; just as she reached the center of the platform a stout man came out of the car and threw her against the brake wheel; that there were others following him. In describing the accident the plaintiff testified in part as follows:

‘Well the minute he left the car he threw me against the brake wheel, he was so stout there wasn't room for the two of us. * * * He threw me against the brake wheel and held me there by the others a minute or two, held me there some minutes because there was others on. * * * As soon as he got away from me, he went down the steps and the others followed down the steps.’

There was nothing to show that the presence of the woman with the little girl, who was on the platform when the plaintiff boarded the car, in any way impeded the plaintiff's progress or contributed to the accident, which, on the undisputed evidence, was caused by the plaintiff and the stout man being upon the platform at a point opposite the brake wheel, where the space was too narrow for them to pass at the same time. While there was evidence that the car which the plaintiff boarded was crowded, there was no evidence that there was any commotion or disturbance, or that any one was pushing or crowding the stout man. If he was careless or ungentlemenly in his conduct, as the plaintiff contends, the defendant cannot for that reason be held liable for her injuries. A common carrier is not responsible for injuries to a passenger caused by the misconduct of others, which it could not have foreseen and guarded against. Marr v. Boston Elev. Ry., 208 Mass. 446, 94 N. E....