Gilman v. Boston & M.R.r.

Decision Date21 May 1897
Citation47 N.E. 193,168 Mass. 454
PartiesGILMAN v. BOSTON & M.R.R.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

William

D. Turner and Henry C. Attwill, for plaintiff.

Solomon Lincoln and Francis P. Sears, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

This is an action for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff's slipping upon an accumulation of snow and ice on a step of one of the defendant's cars. The car was part of a train which just had run from Rockport to Boston, and the jury found, in answer to a question from the judge that the snow and ice were on the steps of the car before it left Rockport. The real questions raised by the exceptions are whether there was any evidence which warranted this finding, and, if so, whether it warranted the conclusion that the defendant was liable for not having cleared the step. A ruling was asked to the effect that a railroad company is not bound to keep an exposed platform clear while in transitu during a storm, and the jury were instructed that there was no rule of law which absolutely requires it, but that it was for them to say what was reasonable. Considering the evidence as to the middle brakeman's duty, we are not prepared to say that there was error in the instructions as applied to a local passenger train, but this we need not decide, as the verdict of the jury went on a different view of the facts. If the snow and ice upon which the plaintiff slipped were on the step before the train started, there is no need to consider what the defendant's duties would have been if they had accumulated during the passage of the train.

We cannot say that the jury were not warranted in their finding. There was evidence of a snowstorm which lasted all day in Salem, and most of the day in Boston. It is not unfair to infer that so persistent a storm extended to Rockport. There was evidence that it stopped snowing in Boston at 9 in the evening, and that it was not snowing at Salem a little over half an hour later, when the plaintiff left a concert there and took the train. The snow was hard as if it had been there some time. If this evidence was believed, it was a possible inference that the snow was on the step before the train started. If so, and if it was in such a condition that it was likely that some one would slip upon it, the jury was warranted in finding that the condition ought to have been remedied at the earliest practicable moment. Weston v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Taylor v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1925
    ...keep the steps to its coaches clear of ice and snow. Railroad v. Keegan, 112 Ill.App. 28; Murphy v. Railroad, 81 N. J. L. 706; Gilman v. Railroad, 168 Mass. 454; Speck v. Railroad, 133 A.D. 802; Railway v. Gresham, 140 S.W. 483; Railroad v. Cockerell, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1037; Neslie v. Railroad......
  • Craig v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1913
    ...Mo.App. 316; Logan v. Street Railway, 183 Mo. 582; Waldopfel v. Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 524; Haas v. Railroad, 128 Mo.App. 79; Gilman v. Railroad, 168 Mass. 454; Foster v. Street Railway, 182 Mass. 378; v. Railroad, 208 Mass. 273; Rosen v. Boston, 187 Mass. 245; McGuire v. Transit Co., 104......
  • Gegere v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 26789.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1928
    ...521. The accumulation itself and climatic conditions may be such as to indicate a negligent delay in its removal. Gilman v. Boston, etc., Ry. Co., 168 Mass. 454, 47 N. E. 193; Foster v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 182 Mass. 378, 65 N. E. 795. The surrounding circumstances may also be such as to......
  • Hartford v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 14, 1932
    ...passengers to have discovered and removed it. Rosen v. Boston, 187 Mass. 245, 72 N. E. 992,68 L. R. A. 153. See Gilman v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 168 Mass. 454, 47 N. E. 193;Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 273, 94 N. E. 386,21 Ann. Cas. 1143;Hudson v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 275 M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT