Eaton v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1917
• Citation: 227 Mass. 113
• Parties: CLEMENTINE M. EATON v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

227 Mass. 113

CLEMENTINE M. EATON v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN, AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

May 25, 1917

March 14 1917.

Present: RUGG, C J., DE COURCY, CROSBY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.

Negligence Railroad. Evidence, Materiality.

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.

At the trial of an action by a woman against a railroad corporation, it appeared that, in the evening of a day when railroad traffic was much impeded by a snow-storm and there was a large crowd at a terminal station of the railroad, the plaintiff got upon the platform of a car where already there were a woman and a little girl, that just as she reached the centre of the platform a stout man came out of the car and threw her against a brake wheel, that others were following him, that there was not room for both the plaintiff and the stout man and that the plaintiff was thrown against the brake wheel by the stout man and was held there some minutes "because there were others on," and that as soon as the stout man got away from the plaintiff "he went down the steps and the others followed down the steps." Held, that the evidence did not warrant a finding that the plaintiff's injuries were due to misconduct of a large crowd or to the crowded condition of the car or to any negligence of the defendant.

At the trial above described, it clearly appearing that the crowded condition of the cars could not have contributed in any way to the plaintiff's injuries, it was proper to exclude a question, asked by the plaintiff of an employee of the defendant, "Don't you think on that night if four trains failed to go and the passengers which would ordinarily go in those four trains were put on to two trains that extra cars ought to be put on to accommodate them?"

CONTRACT OR TORT to recover damages for negligence or breach of the defendant's contract as a carrier whereby the plaintiff received personal injuries by being pushed against a brake wheel of one of the defendant's cars while boarding the car in the South Terminal station at Boston on December 24, 1912. Writ dated October 2, 1914.

In the Superior Court the case was tried before Keating, J. The material evidence is described in the opinion. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the judge subject to an exception by the plaintiff ordered a verdict for the defendant and reported the case for determination by this court.

H. B. Mackintosh, for the plaintiff. Joseph Wentworth, for the defendant, was not called upon.

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 snow-storm 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 got upon the car and then proceeded up the steps and got on the platform; that there were a woman and a little girl upon the platform at that time; that...