Read v. Warwick Mills

• Decision Date: 07 December 1903
• Parties: READ v. WARWICK MILLS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

56 A. 679

25 R.I. 476

READ

v. WARWICK MILLS.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Dec. 7, 1903.

Case for negligence by Joseph Read, administrator, etc., against the Warwick Mills. On demurrer to declaration. Demurrer sustained.

Argued before STINESS, C. J., and TILLINGHAST and DOUGLAS, JJ.

George T. Brown, for plaintiff.

Van Slyck & Mumford, for defendant.

DOUGLAS, J. The defendant is the owner of certain land in Warwick upon which it maintains a railway connecting with the tracks of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. The spur track is provided with gates, placed across it at the boundary of the defendant's inclosure. The plaintiff's intestate was a brakeman in the service of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, and in the line of his duty was riding upon the footboard of a locomotive which had been engaged in drawing cars from the defendant's premises to the main track by invitation of the defendant. As the locomotive was backing out of the defendant's inclosure, one of the gates swung against the plaintiff's intestate, knocked him from the footboard, and threw him under the moving locomotive, which passed over his body and killed him. As a foundation of this action the plaintiff asserts that it was the defendant's duty, in these circumstances, to have so controlled the gate that it could not swing except when it should be moved intentionally; that is, that the gate should have been fastened back, or a porter should have been provided to keep it open while the locomotive was passing through. The demurrer raises two questions: First, whether the declaration expressly states a breach of duty; second, whether, in the circumstances stated, the law imposed any duty upon the defendant which it has neglected.

The first question is merely one of form, and the view which we take of the second one makes it immaterial, for we are persuaded that the defendant has been guilty of no breach of duty towards the plaintiff's intestate. The gate was in proper condition to fulfill the uses which it was constructed for. It was so placed as to form a part of the barrier around the owner's inclosure when shut, and was adapted to be opened by any person who was entitled to pass through. It is not said to have had any peculiarities which distinguished it from ordinary structures of like character, and its characteristics were obvious. The fact that it might be moved on its hinges is one which could be ascertained by looking at it. That a...