Johnson v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Citation125 Mass. 75
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Decision Date19 July 1878
PartiesJohnson v. Boston & Maine Railroad. Abby Johnson v. Boston and Maine Railroad

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by the alleged negligence of the defendant.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who, after verdict for the defendant, reported the case for the determination of this court in substance as follows:

The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that on December 4, 1875, she purchased a ticket at the defendant's office in Boston, entitling her to be carried over the defendant's road from Boston to Lawrence, and thence over the Manchester and Lawrence Railroad, to Manchester, New Hampshire; that the ticket had coupons attached, and contained no limitations as to the time when it was to be used, and was silent as to the right of the party holding it to stip over at any point on the line; that she took the train leaving Boston about noon, and, having occasion to stop at Somerville on the line of the defendant's road, in order to see her son, whom she was expecting by a train upon the Eastern Railroad, at the station of the latter road in Somerville, a few rods distant from the defendant's station, she stepped from the train at the defendant's station in Somerville, intending to resume her journey by another train on the defendant's road, which would leave Boston at five o'clock on the same day; that after leaving the car she proceeded to a house near by the station that the defendant's station and grounds at Somerville extend the entire distance between Cambridge and Perkins streets, both of which streets the railroad crosses at grade, and both of which are provided with gates; that there are two tracks running north and south, parallel to each other and about four feet apart; that the principal station is on the west side, and there is a platform adjacent to the track, raised about eight inches above the track, and extending the entire distance between Perkins Street on the north and Cambridge Street on the south; that upon the opposite or east side of the track and adjacent to it, a platform similar to that upon the west side extends the entire distance between Perkins and Cambridge streets, and meets each highway at a level; that a narrow planking extends on the west side of the track the whole length of the western platform, between the platform and the extreme western rail, and even with the top of the rail; that a similar space between the extreme western rail and the eastern platform is not planked; that a planking even with the top of the rails extends between the eastern rail of the western track and the western rail of the eastern track, the entire distance between Cambridge Street and Perkins Street; that there is no planking between the rails of either track, but a solid filling of earth fills up the space even with the top of the sleepers; and that all the platforms and plankings referred to extend a distance of two hundred and twenty feet, and all of them connect either at a level or by suitable approaches with the sidewalks of each street.

The plaintiff testified that she waited at the house where she was stopping until nearly half past one, the time when the train upon the Eastern Railroad which she expected to meet was due; that she then started to go to the Eastern Railroad station, and proceeded upon Perkins Street to the crossing of the defendant's railroad, when a train of the defendant's, passing southward on the track nearest her prevented her going further at that moment; that this train stopped at the Somerville station of the defendant; that she thereupon stepped upon the northern end of the defendant's western platform, close to which the train was standing, and walked southward along the platform by the side of the train; that she was informed as to the position of the Eastern Railroad station, and stopped upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Ryan v. Towar
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1901
    ... ... owned by a railroad company, under an arrangement between ... them. In the house was a small ... Railroad Co., ... 143 Mass. 535, 10 N.E. 255; also Johnson v ... Railroad, 125 Mass. 75; Wright v. Railroad, 129 ... Mass. 440; ... ...
  • Ryan v. Towar
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1901
    ...Steamship Co., 147 Mass. 66,16 N. E. 710, and cases cited; Barstow v. Railroad Co., 143 Mass. 535, 10 N. E. 255; also Johnson v. Railroad, 125 Mass. 75;Wright v. Railroad, 129 Mass. 440;Morrissey v. Railroad Co., 126 Mass. 337, 30 Am. Rep. 686;Wright v. Railroad, 142 Mass. 296, 7 N. E. 866;......
  • Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1909
    ...as to imply wilfulness. Heiss v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 72 N.W. 787; C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Tartt, 64 F. 823, 827; Johnson v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 75; Wright v. B. & M. R. R. 129 Mass. 440; Wright B. & M. R. R., 142 Mass. 296, 300; Sutton v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 66 N.Y. ......
  • Jackson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott and Memphis Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1900
    ...Barney v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 372; Barker v. Railroad 98 Mo. 53; Maloy v. Railroad, 84 Mo. 270; Williams v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 283; Johnson v. Railroad, 125 Mass. 75. Furthermore, no such ordinance as was referred to in the petition was attempted to be proved; the rate of speed specified in the......
  • 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