Gleason v. New York & N.E.R. Co.
| Citation | 159 Mass. 68,34 N.E. 79 |
| Parties | GLEASON v. NEW YORK & N.E.R. CO. |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1893 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C.G. Fall, for plaintiff.
F.A. Farnham and R.D. Weston Smith, for defendant.
The defendant's passenger yard extended over Ft. Point Channel, being planked or timbered, and the planks or timbers were generally an inch or two apart, but at the place of the plaintiff's accident the evidence tended to show that the open space was about 31/2 inches wide, extending between the rails of a track. The yard was about 500 feet long and 40 feet wide, with a space for walking. The plaintiff had been employed in this yard for about six weeks as a switchman. His duties had constantly taken him to all the switches in the yard, and he had been in the habit of throwing the switch which was at the hole where he got hurt. In view of the defendant's first request for instructions, which was refused, it must now be assumed that the open space or hole at the time of the accident was in the same condition as it was when the plaintiff went to work in the yard. It was plain to be seen, and any one passing there, and looking where he stepped, could not fail to see it. The plaintiff's familiarity with the general condition of the premises cannot be doubted, and the condition at this particular place, where he had been in the habit of working day after day, was open to view, and obvious. Under this state of things, no duty rested upon the defendant to alter the timbering or planking, and the plaintiff must be held to have taken the risk. O'Maley v. Gaslight Co., 157 Mass. ----, 32 N.E. 1119; Wood v. Locke, 147 Mass. 604, 18 N.E. 578; Lovejoy v. Railroad Co., 125 Mass. 79. The case is to be distinguished from Hannah v. Railroad Co., 154 Mass. 529, 28 N.E. 682, where a temporary hole in the roadbed was formed after the plaintiff's employment began, and had been there but a short time, and had not been noticed by him.
Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramon v. Interstate Utilities Co.
... ... 572, 3 ... Am. Rep. 506; Becker v. Baumgartner, 5 Ind.App. 576, ... 32 N.E. 786; Gleason v. New York & N.E. R. Co., 159 Mass. 68, ... 34 N.E. 79.) ... This ... court has always ... ...
-
Wood v. Danas
...v. Connecticut River Paper Co., supra; Mahoney v. Dore, supra; O'Maley v. South Boston Gaslight Co., supra; Gleason v. New York & New England Railroad, 159 Mass. 68, 34 N. E. 79;Content v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 165 Mass. 267, 43 N. E. 94;Kenney v. Hingham Cordage Co., 168......
-
Ziraldo v. W.J. Lynch Co.
...G. H. & Milwaukee Railway, 122 U.S. 189, 7 S.Ct. 1166, 30 L.Ed. 1114;Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228, 19 N.E. 344;Gleason v. Railroad, 159 Mass. 68, 34 N.E. 79;Connolly v. Eldredge, 160 Mass. 566, 36 N.E. 469;Lemoine v. Aldrich, 177 Mass. 89, 58 N.E. 178;Burke v. Davis, 191 Mass. 20......
-
Cassady v. Boston & A.R.r.
... ... 135, 32 N.E ... 1119; Fisk v. Railroad Co., 158 Mass. 238, 33 N.E ... 510; Gleason v. Railroad Co., 159 Mass. 68, 34 N.E ... 79; Daigle v. Manufacturing Co., 159 Mass. 378, 34 ... ...