Langway v. Trustees of New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1955 |
| Citation | 332 Mass. 215,124 N.E.2d 519 |
| Parties | Arthur A. LANGWAY v. TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN and HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas S. Carey, Worcester, for plaintiff.
Noel W. Deering, Boston, for defendants.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on February 27, 1946, while in the employ of the defendants. The declaration was in two counts, but the first count which set forth a cause of action at common law was waived at the trial. The second count was based upon the Federal Employers' Liability Act, Title 45, U.S.C.A. §§ 51, 53, and 54. It was agreed at the pre-trial hearing that the plaintiff sustained an injury arising out of his employment, and at the trial it was agreed that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident. These agreements bring this action within the scope of the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The action was tried to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff. It comes here upon the exception of the defendants to the denial of their motion for a directed verdict. There was no error.
We summarize the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was a yard conductor in charge of an engine and crew engaged in switching operations in yard 1 of the Worcester yard of the defendants. Prior to this time he had been in the employ of the railroad in similar work for more than twenty-four years. On the day of the injury it was hailing, snowing, and sleeting. He was engaged in making up freight trains, setting cars for sidings, and classifying cars for the trains. Cars which were to make up the freight train were assembled on track 17 and others were put on track 15. These tracks ran parallel and adjacent to each other in a northerly and southerly direction. During the switching operations he had to walk between cars on tracks 15 and 17. He was unable to walk between the cars facing forward but he had to walk sidewise and squeeze his way through. Each car was 40 feet long. When he had the cars he wanted lined up on track 17 he gave his engineer a signal to move them. The front end of an engine was coupled to the front end of the first car of the train on track 17 and the engine backed out in a southerly direction. As the train started to move the plaintiff got on a step at the easterly forward end of the fourth car from the rear of the train. He stood with both feet on this step and held on to a handle on the easterly side of the car with both hands. This step was made of steel and hung down about 18 inches below the bottom of the car. it was about 12 inches wide. When the train started he was looking in a southerly direction toward the engine but the snow and hail struck his face so that he turned his head the other way. After he had ridden in this manner for about 200 feet he felt a blow on his back which broke his hold and he fell into the area between the tracks. He appeared to have been struck by the corner or the door of a car on track 15. As he started to get up he was hit on his left side by the step of the last car on track 17. The train continued for a distance of 600 feet before it came to a stop. When the plaintiff first began to work in this yard in 1922 the distance between the easterly rail of track 17 and the westerly rail of track 15 was 6 feet. On the day of the accident that distance was 5 feet 4 inches. In 1922 the rails of these tracks were straight, level, and evenly spaced. The ties and ballast were in good condition. When the accident occurred the ties rested on top of the ground and there was no ballast. Some of the ties were broken and cracked so that the rails were not in alignment and one rail was higher than the other. The plaintiff testified that 'as we got out there, with the trains, we'd be hanging on, and the cars would sway from one side to the other, in other words, rocky.' The condition with respect to the rails and roadbed as it was at the time of the accident had existed for 3 or 4 years prior thereto. The plaintiff had reported these conditions to an assistant superintendent of the railroad but no repairs were made. At the time of the accident the clearance between a box car on track 15 and one on track 17 was 8 to 10 inches. In 1922 this clearance was 18 to 20 inches.
The plaintiff admitted that he was familiar with certain rules of the railroad which were in effect when the accident happened and that he had instructed those under him about them. 1
In these circumstances the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labonte v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
...319 Mass. 413, 417, 65 N.E.2d 923; Keough v. Cefalo, 330 Mass. 57, 110 N.E.2d 919; Langway v. Trustees of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 332 Mass. 215, 218-219, 124 N.E.2d 519. The railroad is not an insurer. Its liability under the act is based solely on negligence with the b......