McGlauflin v. Boston & M.R.R.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1918
• Citation: 119 N.E. 955,230 Mass. 431
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: McGLAUFLIN v. BOSTON & M. R. R.

230 Mass. 431

119 N.E. 955

McGLAUFLIN

v.BOSTON & M. R. R.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 28, 1918.

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.

Separate actions by Hiram H. McGlauflin by Teresa Deddling, by Henry Martell, by Mary McSweeney, by Alice Thompson, by Martha Thompson, and by Walter Tate against the Boston & Maine Railroad, resulting in findings for defendant; plaintiff McGlauflin excepting, and the cases being reported to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered for defendant in each case.

Daniel H. Coakley and W. Jennings Patron, both of Boston, and John J. Shaughnessy, of Marlboro, for plaintiffs.

Trull & Wier and John M. O'Donoghue, all of Lowell, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff McGlauflin was operating for hire an automobile between Hudson and Marlboro, for the conveyance of passengers. The other plaintiffs boarded the automobile about 8 o'clock in the evening July 22, 1915, at Hudson, to be carried to Marlboro. About a mile from the starting place the public highway crosses the defendant's railroad at grade. The railroad crossing cannot be seen by a person traveling in the direction in which the plaintiffs were going until within about 250 to 300 feet of it. There was an electric bell at the right of the highway, designed to warn travelers on the highway of approaching trains, which was installed and maintained by the defendant, although not required by an order under St. 1906, part 2, c. 463, § 151. While the plaintiffs were traveling at the rate of 18 miles an hour, they came into collision with a freight train standing on the crossing, and received the injuries of which they complained. They testified that they listened for the bell and did not hear it. McGlauflin testified that he was about 50 feet away when he first saw the train and it was impossible for him to stop his machine in less than 60 feet. One headlight on the automobile was not lighted and the other threw its rays about 40 feet. There was evidence that the failure of the gong to ring was caused either by an exhausted battery or by broken connections.

The jury found that the bell was silent from the time the plaintiffs came within hearing until the time of the collisions, and that the train had not been on the crossing for more than five minutes before the accident occurred. St. 1906, part 2, c. 463, § 155. They found for the defendant against the plaintiff McGlauflin, and his case is before us on exceptions, with a stipulation that if the evidence of the failure to ring the bell did not show negligence of the defendant or its servants, and the case should not have been submitted to the jury on this issue of negligence, then judgment is to be entered for the defendant; they also found for the other plaintiffs, and the judge reported the cases to this court.

The only negligence relied on is the failure of the electric gong to ring. Even if this appliance were maintained by the defendant because required to do so under the authority of the statute, its purpose was to protect travelers on the highway from the danger of approaching trains, and not to warn the public against cars and engines which were standing still. A plaintiff cannot recover for the violation of a statute unless there is a causal connection between his injury and the condition to which the statute ap...