Ladd v. Brockton St. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1902
• Citation: 180 Mass. 454,62 N.E. 730
• Parties: LADD v. BROCKTON ST. RY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

180 Mass. 454

62 N.E. 730

LADD v. BROCKTON ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

February 27, 1902

COUNSEL

Philip A Kiely, for plaintiff.

H. F Hurlburt and Damon E. Hall, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while engaged in learning the duties of a conductor upon the defendant's road in anticipation of being so employed by it. The declaration is in three counts: The first for negligently placing and maintaining a post in its roadbed so near the rail that the plaintiff, while walking on the running board of a car in the discharge of his duty, came in contact with it, and received the injuries complained of; the second, under St. 1887, c. 270, for a defect in the ways and works which arose from, or had not been discovered in consequence of, the negligence of the defendant, or of some one in its employ intrusted with the duty of seeing that the ways and works were in proper condition, the defect consisting of the post aforesaid; and the third for setting the plaintiff to work in a dangerous place. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.

We think that the ruling was right. The accident occurred about the middle of the forenoon on August 30, 1899. The day was bright. The plaintiff began learning the duties of a conductor in the defendant's employ two days before the accident. He had not worked in this part of the defendant's road before that morning. But on that morning he had made two or more trips by the place where the accident happened. He had acted as conductor on other roads in this state and in New York, and testified that he was familiar with the duties of conductor, and considered himself an experienced man. At the place of the accident the track ran along the side of the road for about 1,000 feet, and then ran in the center of the road. The post which the plaintiff struck was a trolley post, and was one of several along the side of the track at that place, and all about the same distance from the track, and they and the track had been in the same positions for eight or nine years. There was no evidence that the construction was unusual, or that the posts were unusually near to the track. The plaintiff testified that he knew that if was common in country towns to have tracks run on one side of the road, and that he...