St. Jean v. Bo.ston & M.R. Co

• Decision Date: 08 January 1898
• Citation: 170 Mass. 213,48 N.E. 1088
• Parties: ST. JEAN v. BOSTON & M.R. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

170 Mass. 213

48 N.E. 1088

ST. JEAN

v.BOSTON & M.R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Jan. 8, 1898.

Exceptions from superior court, Middlesex county.

Action of tort by one St. Jean against the Boston & Maine Railroad Company to recover for personal injuries. Plaintiff was employed by defendant, and was one of a gang of men at work repairing tracks. He was struck by a train going at the rate of 30 miles an hour, and injured. In the superior court a verdict was ordered for defendant, and plaintiff excepted. Exceptions overruled.C.H. Innes and J.H. Vahey, for plaintiff.

G.F., G.R. & D.M. Richardson, for defendant.

BARKER, J.

In our opinion, the verdict for defendant was ordered rightly. The train was a regular one, and came at the regular time, and in the usual way. It was the plaintiff's duty to get out of its way, without compelling those in control of the train to give him warning of danger. He does not seem to have been upon the track itself, though working upon a rail which had been taken up, and which lay outside of the track, and near it. But if it could be found from the evidence that he was upon the track, or so near the track, and so leaning towards or over it, as to make it the duty of the engineer to give the signal required by the rules to persons on the track, and that the engineer was negligent in not giving that signal, the plaintiffhad no right to stay upon the track until such a signal should be given. It was his duty seasonably to put himself out of danger at the approach of the train. His hearing was good. The train had been in plain sight for a quarter of a mile, and its whistle at a greater distance was audible even further away than the place where he was at work. Besides the warning given by the approach of the train itself, he was called to by fellow workmen. The inference must be drawn from the testimony that he was negligent in not noticing the approach of the train, and this negligence precludes his recovery. Exceptions overruled.