Renaldi v. New York Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1926 |
| Citation | 152 N.E. 373,256 Mass. 337 |
| Parties | RENALDI v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.
Two actions by Arsenio Renaldi, one as administrator of the estate of Attilio Renaldi, and the other as administrator of the estate of Giovanni Bardelli, both against the New York Central Railroad Company. On report after directed verdicts for defendant. Judgment on verdicts.F. Hunt, of Boston, for plaintiff.
L. A. Mayberry and W. F. Levis, both of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff in the first action as administrator of the estate of Giovanni Bardelli, and in the second action as administrator of the estate of Attilio Renaldi, sues to recover damages for the conscious suffering and death of each decedent alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The declaration in each action as amended consisted of four counts, two for conscious suffering under G. L. c. 153, and two for death caused by wrongful act under G. L. c. 229, § 4.
The decedents on January 11, 1922, were employed by the defendant railroad, and the jury could find that the day was stormy, with a high wind. It snowed and rained heavily, and at noon time the section foreman of the switching gang told the decedent Renaldi, ‘You have got to go up there and clean the switch at West Connor.’ Renaldi replied, ‘I will not go,’ because it was storming. The foreman then said: And the decedent Giovanni Bardelli having been called, they both went away together, each carying a shovel and a broom. The distance to West Connor was about three-quarters of an hour's walk. The hospital record showed that both men were admitted to the hospital at about 2:50 p. m. January 11, 1922, and died there about 4:35 p. m. There also was evidence that the decedents were seen at work when a train came along, and then ‘one was thrown to one side’ and ‘one on the other side.’ The train which struck them was an interstate train running from Boston to Albany on the main line track, and the switch was being cleaned in connection with the running of this train. The defendant's engineer testified that, from something the fireman said to him just as the engine struck the curve on the main line track and he had gone a considerable distance beyond the switch, he blew his whistle, immediately applied the brakes, stopped the train, and was told that ‘he had struck some men or a man at the switch.’ His uncontradicted evidence tended to show ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Trustees of New York
...bringing action as prescribed in the bills of lading had expired, then there was error in allowing the amendment. Renaldi v. New York Central R., 256 Mass. 337, 152 N.E. 373;Hughes v. Gaston, 281 Mass. 292, 183 N.E. 752;Union Pacific R. v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285, 15 S.Ct. 877, 39 L.Ed. 983;Sea......
-
Hietala v. Boston & A.R.R.
...v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co., 244 Mass. 216, 219, 138 N.E. 547;Renaldi v. New York Central Railroad Co., 256 Mass. 337, 152 N.E. 373;Carfelo v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co. (C.C.A.) 54 F.(2d) 475; Jacobson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad ......
-
Hietala v. Boston & A.R.R.
...... . . [3. N.E.2d 378] J. A. Anderson, of New York City, for plaintiff. . . F. M. Myers, of Pittsfield, for defendant. . . ...New York Central & Hudson River Railroad. Co., 244 Mass. 216, 219, 138 N.E. 547; Renaldi v. New York Central Railroad Co., 256 Mass. 337, 152 N.E. 373; Carfelo v. Delaware, Lackawanna & ......
-
Robinson v. Trustees of New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
...for bringing action as prescribed in the bills of lading had expired, then there was error in allowing the amendment. Renaldi v. New York Central Railroad, 256 Mass. 337 . Hughes v. Gaston, 281 Mass. 292. Union Railroad v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285. Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Renn, 241 U.S. 290......