Treat v. Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation
| Decision Date | 06 September 1881 |
| Citation | 131 Mass. 371 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Louis E. Treat v. Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation |
Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by being thrown from a car on the defendant's railroad. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in this court, before Ames, J., the plaintiff offered to prove the following facts:
On April 19, 1875, that being the day of the centennial celebrations at Lexington and Concord, the plaintiff purchased a ticket at Boston for Lexington. He took his seat seasonably in the car, and, on being called upon, gave up his ticket to the conductor, requesting that he would stop at Munroe station. The conductor took the ticket, saying "I cannot punch it, but I will stop the train at that station." Munroe station is a flag station, a little east of Lexington. There was a great crowd of passengers filling up all the seats, passageways and platforms, and many passengers got upon the roofs of the cars. The train was very long and heavy, and did not start until long after the advertised time. On approaching Munroe station, the plaintiff left his seat, and tried to make his way towards the door, in order to leave the train at that station. The train did not come to a full stop on reaching it; but the plaintiff, in making his way through the crowd, reached the platform, and in the surging of the crowd, fell, or was pushed out on the platform and down the steps of the car; and, after holding on with one hand for a short distance, he finally fell to the ground and was injured. It was a day of great excitement and confusion, and the defendant's cars were overloaded by the crowd.
The judge ruled, at the defendant's request, that these facts, if proved, would not enable the plaintiff to maintain his action; directed a verdict for the defendant; and reported the case for the determination of the full court. If the ruling was correct, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, the case to stand for trial.
New trial ordered.
J. W. Hubbard, for the plaintiff.
J. H. George (of New Hampshire) & H. E. Morse, for the defendant.
OPINION
On both the material questions involved, there was evidence which should have been submitted to the jury.
The plaintiff did not appear to have been in the position of one who at his own risk voluntarily assumes an exposed position not intended for passengers. Gahagan v. Boston & Lowell Railroad , 1 Allen 187. Todd v Old Colony Railroad, 3 Allen 18, and 7 Allen 207. Hickey v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 14 Allen 429. He had been promised that the train should stop at Monroe station, and was justified in making proper preparations to leave the car there. It was a flag station, where the stop would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sack v. Davis
...the rights of others. There was nothing to indicate the likelihood of impetuosity, lawlessness, riotousness, or force. Treat v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 131 Mass. 371. To hold this defendant responsible on this evidence in effect would render the proprietor of every place where similar num......
-
Holton v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...Mass. 184, 100 N.E. 1099;Isenberg v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 221 Mass. 182, 108 N.E. 1046. See Treat v. Boston & Lowell Railroad Corp., 131 Mass. 371;Kuhlen v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co., 193 Mass. 341, 79 N.E. 815, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 729, 118 Am.St.Rep. 516;Glenn......
-
Lehnick v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co.
... ... recover. Oliver v. Railroad, 9 So. 431; Wilmot ... v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 535; Ellinger ... 503, 505; ... Dennis v. Railroad, 165 Pa. 624; Treat v ... Railroad, 131 Mass. 371; Graham v. McNeill, 20 ... ...
-
Kuhlen v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co.
... ... This is the unvarying ... doctrine of our own decisions. Treat v. Boston & Lowell ... Railroad, 131 Mass. 373; Commonwealth v ... ...