Lyford v. Boston & M.R.R.
Decision Date | 25 May 1917 |
Parties | LYFORD v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Wm. B. Stevens, Judge.
Action by Mary Lyford, administratrix of the estate of Richard Lyford, deceased, against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Herbert B. Ehrmann and Warren J. Bloom, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Archibald R. Tisdale, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort under the Employers' Liability Act (St. 1909, c. 514, § 129), as affected by the Workmen's Compensation Act (St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 1, §§ 1 and 3), to recover damages for the death of an employé of the defendant. As the defendant does not appear to have been a subscriber under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the decisive question is whether there was any evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant or its servants. The deceased was a night watchman upon Mystic Wharf. There was evidence tending to show that it was his duty to Because of the failure to ring in the next box a search was instituted within a few minutes, but no trace of him then was found except his hat floating in the water and his keys on a lighter moored to the wharf. A man near by heard a splash in the water and next morning the lifeless remains of the deceased were found clinging to one of the piles near the eighth box. He was a man of good habits, in excellent health, and never troubled with vertigo or heart disease, but according to the medical examiner, ‘it was impossible to say from his examination whether or not the deceased had a stroke of paralysis, or vertigo, or heart disease prior to falling into the water.’ The death was due to drowning and there were no marks on the body indicating an injury before death. The wharf was entirely covered by a shed, with the exception of a strip about two feet wide. Outside this and along its outer edge extended a raised log one foot in diameter capping the outer row of piles supporting the wharf. Along the inside of the log at varying intervals were large iron cleats around which ropes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armburg v. Boston & M.R.R.
...109 N. E. 820, L. R. A. 1916B, 1281;Henshaw v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 222 Mass. 459, 461, 111 N. E. 172; and Lyford v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 227 Mass. 10, 116 N. E. 416; and the contrary assumption was made in Hix v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 230 Mass. 309, 312, 119 N. ......
-
Sheehan v. Goriansky
...resting upon conjecture like Bigwood v. Boston & N. St. R. Co., 209 Mass. 345, 95 N.E. 751, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 113; Lyford v. Boston & M. R. R., 227 Mass. 10, 116 N.E. 416, and similar cases. The evidence, to be sure was chiefly circumstantial, but the conclusion reached was based on reasonabl......
-
Sheehan v. Goriansky
... ... recklessly exposing him to danger. Massell v. Boston ... Elevated Railway, 191 ... [317 Mass. 15] ... Mass. 491, ... Boston & Northern ... Street Railway, 209 Mass. 345 , Lyford v. Boston & Maine ... Railroad, 227 Mass. 10 , and similar cases. The evidence, to ... be sure, ... ...
-
Connolly v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...fall. The plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proving that her fall resulted from any negligence of the defendant. Lyford v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 227 Mass. 10 Milano v. Wasserman, 255 Mass. 1 . Withington v. Rome, 258 Mass. 188. Gillis v. Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad, 266 ......