Pratt v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1904 |
| Parties | PRATT v. NEW YORK, N.H. & H. R. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Perry, Jenney & Potter, for plaintiff.
F. S Hall, for defendant.
The material evidence in this case was, in substance, as follows The plaintiff was employed by one Porter to assist in loading box boards into a freight car on a spur track of the defendant railroad at Tremont, in this commonwealth. This spur track was used for loading freight cars, and butted upon an open space belonging to the defendant railroad, devoted by it to the deposit of goods to be loaded in such cars. On being told that he wished to move the two cars which were to be loaded to the place where the box boards were, Porter was furnished by the defendant with a bar with which to move the two cars. While the plaintiff, together with Porter and two other employés of his, was moving the car south, to be placed where the boards were, another car came down upon the plaintiff without warning. It was first seen by one of the other employés, who called to the plaintiff; but the car struck the plaintiff before he could get out of its way while he was walking between the rails, pushing against the bunter of the car which was being moved. The car which ran the plaintiff down was standing by itself, six to ten feet further north than the car was which the plaintiff was in the act of moving before the moving of the last car was begun. It was in evidence that it was the practice for shippers to move cars to such place on this spur track as was convenient for loading the goods to be shipped. It was also in evidence that there was a grade in this spur track running downhill toward the south; that it was a grade which no one would be likely to see, unless looking for it; and that, if the brakes were set on a freight car, it could not be moved, even by an iron bar, down this grade. At the time of the accident there was a high wind from the north and no engine, no employés of the defendant, nor any one else near the car which ran the plaintiff down after it was left on the spur track earlier on the same day. The presiding judge directed the jury to render a verdict for the defendant, and the case is here on an exception to that ruling.
The defendant seeks to support the ruling on two grounds: First, that there was no evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff; and, second, that the cause of the accident was, on the evidence, a matter of conjecture, and no negligence on the defendant's part was shown. But we are of opinion that these contentions cannot be maintained.
1. The place in question was not a railroad yard, where cars were continually going back and forth. It was a single spur track leading off the main line, devoted to loading freight cars, at what appears to be a small country station of the defendant railroad; and at the time of the accident there was neither any...
To continue reading
Request your trial