Moreland v. Boston & P.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1886
• Parties: MORELAND v. BOSTON & P.R. Co.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

141 Mass. 31

6 N.E. 225

MORELAND v. BOSTON & P.R. Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 12, 1886

COUNSEL

Russell &

Putnam, for defendant.

J.E Cotter, for plaintiff.

OPINION

W ALLEN, J.

The plaintiff, while passing from the train, on which she was a passenger on the defendant's railroad, to the highway over the platform and station grounds, stepped upon some loose shingles which had been left on the ground by the defendant while shingling its station-house, and fell and was hurt. The plaintiff contended, and the defendant denied, that the defendant was negligent in permitting the shingles to remain there; and both parties asked instructions as to the degree of care which the defendant was bound to exercise in the matter. The plaintiff asked instructions to the effect that the defendant was bound, as a common carrier of passengers, to exercise the utmost care and diligence in providing egress from its premises; that it was liable if the plaintiff was injured through the existence of an obstruction in the premises which might have been guarded against by the utmost care and foresight on the part of the defendant; and that it was the duty of the defendant to provide for its passengers a reasonable and safe opportunity to pass from its premises, and to take means to prevent any injury to them while so passing which human care and foresight could guard against. The defendant requested instructions to the effect that the duty of the defendant was to see that the approaches to the station were reasonably safe and convenient; that its duty in that respect to its passengers did not differ from its duty to other persons than passengers having business at its stations, or from the duty of other owners of buildings towards persons having business therein. The presiding justice read these requests to the jury, and, in answer to them, gave the instruction that in case the plaintiff has the rights of a passenger, "she is entitled to all the care which human foresight can furnish her;" and, at the close of his charge, as a summary and repetition of the law and instructions upon the matters of the prayers, told the jury that if the plaintiff had been a passenger on the defendant's railroad, and was passing from the train to the highway over the platform and grounds, "the defendant was bound to be in the exercise towards her of such care and diligence as could reasonably be exercised to...