Fitchburg R. Co. v. Nichols, 228.
Decision Date | 11 February 1898 |
Docket Number | 228. |
Citation | 85 F. 945 |
Parties | FITCHBURG R. CO. v. NICHOLS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
George A. Torrey, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Blaney and William S. B. Hopkins, for defendant in error.
Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received by the defendant in error, Nichols, while traveling on a cattle train as a drover in charge of stock on the train. The declaration contains three counts for the same cause of action, in each of which it is alleged that Nichols 'while in the exercise of due care,' was injured etc. When the train arrived at a station known as 'Baldwinsville,' it stopped for water. This was taken from a spout between the tracks. The spout swung on a pivot so that when not in use, and in its proper place, it was parallel to the tracks. When used, it was moved by the fireman to a right angle to the tracks. It was the duty of the fireman when sufficient water had been taken, to push the spout back to its proper place. There was evidence tending to show that on this occasion he failed in his duty, and pushed the spout only partially back, leaving it projecting. Nichol's testimony was substantially as follows:
On cross-examination he said:
A witness testified that she saw the spout strike Nichols, and throw him from the train.
The shipper of the cattle signed a special contract for their transportation, and the defendant below relies on the following provision found in it:
Nichols must...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Kendall
......Co. v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291, 23 L.Ed. 898. The same is true of. Massachusetts. Fitchburg R. Co. v. Nichols, 85 F. 945, 29 C.C.A. 500. . . These. illustrations might easily ......
-
Tripp v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.
...... illustrated in the more recent case of Santa Fe Railway. v. Grant Bros., 228 U.S. 177, 184, 185, 33 Sup.Ct. 474,. 477 (57 L.Ed. 787), where an agreement similar in principle. ...8);. Wiley v. Grand Trunk Ry. of Canada (D.C.) 227 F. 127, 128, 129. And see Fitchburg R. Co. v. Nichols, . 85 F. 945, 947, 29 C.C.A. 500 (C.C.A. 1). . . Although. in ......
- Rodgers v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Co.
-
Hulet v. Payne
...... recovery for injuries received as the consequence of his. violation of the regulation. Fitchburg R. Co. v. Nichols, 85 F. 945, 948, 29 C.C.A. 500; Ft. Scott,. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Sparks, 55 Kan. ......