Murphy v. Boston & Albany Railroad Co.
Decision Date | 28 June 1882 |
Citation | 133 Mass. 121 |
Parties | Daniel J. Murphy v. Boston and Albany Railroad Company |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued March 2, 1881 [Syllabus Material]
Suffolk. Tort for injuries sustained by the plaintiff by being struck by the defendant's cars. Trial in this court, before Morton, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
The plaintiff was struck by the defendant's cars, while he was crossing its tracks between South Street and Albany Street, both largely travelled public streets and thoroughfares, in Boston, at a place where a public street called Harvard Street, which ended at Albany Street, would have passed if extended to South Street. sad crossing was between, and a mode of access to, two freight-houses of the defendant.
It was admitted that this crossing was not a public way, and that the defendant had planked the same and kept a flagman there, and it appeared that large numbers of vehicles and men on foot crossed there without prohibition. The jury viewed the premises, and the plaintiff contended that it appeared from this view, and the evidence in the case, that the defendant had so arranged this crossing with planking and paving as to make it an apparent continuation of Harvard Street from Albany Street to South Street, and thus held it out to the world as a public crossing, and induced plaintiff to cross there. The plaintiff was a pupil at a public school, and crossed the tracks on the way from his home to said school, as he had frequently done before.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in backing its train around the curve over the crossing without proper warning or precaution against accident, in omitting to provide another flagman to guard the crossing, in giving the flagman who was there too much other work to attend to, and in the failure of the flagman to attend to his duty. The evidence was conflicting as to where the plaintiff crossed and was injured.
The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury as follows:
Upon the matters embraced in these requests, the judge instructed the jury, that it was for them, on all the evidence, to say whether the defendant had held out this crossing as a proper place for all persons, including the plaintiff, to cross, and thus, by its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cederson v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co.
... ... Cederson, deceased, against the Oregon Railroad & Navigation ... Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant ... active vigilance. In Murphy v. Railroad Co., 133 ... Mass. 121, the injury occurred at a ... ...
-
Czech v. Great Northern Railway Company
... ... signals shall be given, a railroad may operate its trains ... over other crossings without such signals ... 531; ... Vandewater v. New York, 135 N.Y. 583; Hanks v ... Boston, 147 Mass. 495; Owens v. Pennsylvania, ... 41 F. 187; Reifsnyder v ... New York, (R. I.) 29 A. 448; Gurley ... v. Missouri, 122 Mo. 141; Murphy v. Boston, 133 ... Mass. 121; O'Connor v. Boston, 135 Mass. 352; ... ...
-
Boyd v. Wabash Western Ry. Co.
...laid out and dedicated to the public. Kime v. Railroad, 90 Mo. 314; Sweeny v. Railroad, 10 Allen, 368, and cases therein cited; Murphy v. Railroad, 133 Mass. 121; Brown Railroad, 50 Mo. 461. (7) Defendant's servants were guilty of wanton and reckless conduct. Cooley on Torts, p. 668; Whiteh......
-
Printy v. Reimbold
...Iron & Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216; Oliver v. City of Worcester, 102 Mass. 489; Davis v. Central Cong. Soc., 129 Mass. 367; Murphy v. Boston & Albany R. Co., 133 Mass. 121; Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; Barry New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 92 N.Y. 289; Lawson v. Shreveport Waterworks ......