Olds v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 October 1898
• Citation: 172 Mass. 73,51 N.E. 450
• Parties: OLDS v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 73

51 N.E. 450

OLDS v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Franklin.

October 20, 1898

COUNSEL Parker F. Martin, for plaintiff.

Dana Malone, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

This is an action to recover damages for an injury received by the plaintiff while riding in a car of the defendant corporation. The case was tried without a jury. The judge found that the jerking and jolting were "greater and more severe than would occur on an ordinary passenger train running under due care, and ruled that if the liability in respect to preventing injury by jolting and jerking and stopping suddenly is the same, and if the obligations are the same in all these respects, on a freight or mixed train, such as this train was, as on an ordinary passenger train, the plaintiff is entitled to recover; *** but, if the defendant was not liable for such jolting and jerking as was ordinarily incident to a train of this kind, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover." By agreement of the parties, the case was reported to this court. If the ruling was correct judgment is to be entered for the defendant; if incorrect for the plaintiff. It must be assumed that on the findings of fact this is the only disputed proposition of law which was considered at the trial.

The accident occurred on a branch line of the defendant's railroad, about 10 miles in length, extending from South Deerfield to Turner's Falls, in the town of Montague. The trains running on this branch of the railroad are usually made up of freight cars and a car known as a "combination car," one part of which is fitted with seats for the conveyance of passengers, and another part is adapted to carrying baggage. It is reasonably to be inferred that there is not sufficient business over this part of the railroad to warrant the running of trains for carrying passengers only. If under these circumstances the defendant was legally bound to provide for the plaintiff, at the place of the accident, a train made up of passenger cars only, or to conduct its business in such a way as to start and stop its trains with no more jerking or jolting than is common in running ordinary passenger trains, the defendant is liable otherwise it is not. The nature of the defendant's business on this line, and the mode of conducting it, were well known to the plaintiff, and he must be assumed to have made his contract for carriage in reference to existing conditions. It is obvious that common carriers must adapt their vehicles and methods to the business to be done. There is every kind of business to be provided for in different places, from the carrying of thousands of tons of freight and tens of thousands of passengers per day over a single line, to the maintenance of lines over which only an occasional passenger will pass and a few small articles of merchandise be carried. In some places long passenger trains, with the best possible equipment for safety and comfort, are reasonably required; in others a single horse and a cheap wagon are all that can be maintained from the income of the business for which provision is to be...