Powers v. Boston & M.R.r.

• Decision Date: 02 March 1900
• Citation: Powers v. Boston & M.R.r., 175 Mass. 466, 56 N.E. 710 (Mass. 1900)
• Parties: POWERS v. BOSTON & M. R. R.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

175 Mass. 466

56 N.E. 710

POWERS v. BOSTON & M. R. R.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 2, 1900

COUNSEL

R. W. Nason and T. W. Proctor, for plaintiff.

W. I Badger and G. Calkins, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

1.We do not see that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the exclusion of the question to Gould.It does not appear what the plaintiff expected to prove by the answers, but, even assuming that the answers would have tended to support the plaintiff's case, there was no offer to show that the condition of the step for a month before or a week after the accident had been practically the same.The judge, in the exercise of his discretion, might properly exclude the evidence at that stage of the case.If the subsequent evidence--especially that of Barrett--tended to show that the condition of the step was practically the same for a month before or a week after the accident, the plaintiff should have renewed the offer.Not having done that, he has no cause of complaint.

2.The testimony of the witness Barrett was as to the condition of the step on the day of the accident, and was plainly admissible.

3.The rule of due care laid down by the court is to be interpreted with reference to the circumstances, one of which was the fact that the plaintiff was an experienced brakeman, and it was correct.

The plaintiff has not argued his exception to the other portions of the charge, and we do not further notice them, except to say that, in substance, the court followed the law as laid down in the decisions of this court.Johnson v. Towboat Co.,135 Mass. 209, and...