Hodgkins v. Eastern R. Co.

Decision Date28 January 1876
Citation119 Mass. 419
PartiesCharles Hodgkins, administrator, v. Eastern Railroad Company
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Argued November 4, 1875

Essex. Tort to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff's intestate while employed as a brakeman by the defendant corporation. At the trial in this court, Ames, J withdrew the case from the jury, and reported it for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows:

At the opening of the case to the jury, the counsel for the plaintiff stated that on the day of the accident a train of passenger cars, including a smoking and baggage car, was made up at the passenger station of the defendant in Boston, by its ordinary servants, under the general direction of its station agent in Boston, who has charge of the making up of trains, to be run over the railroad to Rockport, and the plaintiff's intestate was placed upon this train to act as brakeman; that the train was made up of cars having platforms of unequal height; that a train so made up was unsafe and dangerous, especially for brakemen, and was well known to be so by the officers and managers of the defendant that a due regard for the safety of its servants, and especially of brakemen, required of the defendant that it should run no cars in the same train having platforms of unequal height, and that it was negligence on its part to run such trains or allow them to be made up.

It was admitted that the cars composing the train in question were properly made, complete and suitable in themselves both with reference to their platforms and in other respects, and that the plaintiff's intestate was assigned to serve as brakeman upon this train by the station agent in Boston.

The counsel for the plaintiff farther stated, that, upon the arrival of the train at Rockport, it was left in charge of the train men (not including the conductor) for the purpose of making up the train in reverse order of cars, as was necessary preparatory to returning to Boston the next morning. For this purpose two of the passenger cars were set off upon a siding, and the remainder of the train, consisting of baggage and smoking cars, was withdrawn to be sent forward again upon the main track, passing by the cars upon the siding. After the former-cars had acquired considerable headway in moving forward upon the main track, it was discovered by the switchman at the siding that the cars first set off had not been pushed sufficiently far upon the siding to clear the main track, and that a corner of one of them projected so far over the main track, and that a corner of one of them projected so far over the main track as to prevent the remainder of the train passing them...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Yost v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 5, 1912
    ...in this action. Tramway v. Nesbit, 22 Col. 408; 1 Labatt on Master and Servant, p. 102; Sweeney v. Envelope Co., 101 N.Y. 520; Hodgkins v. Railroad, 119 Mass. 419; Railroad v. Seley, 152 U.S. 145; Railroad v. Grannon, 90 P. 855; Company v. Devoe, 85 P. 633; Railroad v. Scott, 81 P. 763; Hug......
  • The Chicago v. Lycurgus K. Avery.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 30, 1880
    ...Ill. 270; Clark v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. 92 Ill. 43; Beaulien v. Portland Co. 48 Me. 295; Searle v. Lindsay, 103 E. C. L. 426; Hodgkins v. R. R. Co. 119 Mass. 419. As to what constitutes a common employment: C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Murphy, 53 Ill. 339; Valtez v. O. & M. Ry. Co. 85 Ill. 500. The......
  • Shedd v. Moran
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 31, 1882
    ...§ 437; O'Connor v. Roberts, 120 Mass. 227; Summersell v. Fish, 117 Mass. 312; Johnson v. Boston, 118 Mass. 114; Hodgkins v. Eastern Railroad, 119 Mass. 419, Kelly v. Norcross, 121 Mass. 508; Harkins v. Standard Sugar Refining Co., 122 Mass. 400; C. & I. C. R'y Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174, Th......
  • Holden v. Fitchburg Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1880
    ... ... and being so carried, is a fellow-servant with a flagman or ... switchman. Gilman v. Eastern Railroad, 10 ... Allen 233, and 13 Allen 433. The rule has been steadfastly ... upheld by the English courts under ... [129 Mass. 273] ... Agawam ... Canal, above cited. Durgin v. Munson, ... 9 Allen 396. Duffy v. Upton, 113 Mass. 544 ... Avilla v. Nash, 117 Mass. 318 ... Hodgkins v. Eastern Railroad, 119 Mass ... 419. O'Connor v. Roberts, 120 Mass ... 227. Kelley v. Norcross, 121 Mass. 508 ... Harkins v. Standard Sugar ... ...
  • 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