Tyler v. Old Colony R. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1892 |
| Citation | 157 Mass. 336,32 N.E. 227 |
| Parties | TYLER v. OLD COLONY R. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Chas. T. Baker and Herbert Parker, for plaintiff.
Frank P. Goulding, for defendant.
1. The testimony of Bassett was properly excluded. The fact that 12 years before the accident the defendant's lessor had, in compliance with an oral application of the selectmen of Berlin, maintained a flagman at the crossing, had no tendency to show that due care on the part of the defendant required that one should be stationed there at the time of the accident. See Menard v. Railroad Co., 150 Mass. 386 23 N.E. 214. There is nothing in the terms of the lease which enlarges the rights of the intestate. The defendant covenanted to use the road in accordance with the laws of the commonwealth, and to maintain "the demised railroad properties" in the same condition they were then in. The demised properties were the "tenements, tracks, depot grounds, stations, superstructures, and fixtures." There is no covenant to keep a flagman wherever a flagman was then kept. If the covenant to use the road in accordance with the laws of the commonwealth means that the road will use due care towards third persons, it adds nothing to the obligation which the defendant was under when it undertook to operate the railroad.
2. The record of the county commissioners was rightly rejected. It had nothing to do with establishing a flagman at the crossing, and imposes no duty upon the petitioner in this respect. It was a petition by the Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad Company, in 1874, against the Massachusetts Central Railroad Company, for damages for taking a part of the petitioner's land, and occupying a part of the petitioner's location. It is true that the petition recites that the acts of the respondent will make the crossing so unsafe as to require the presence of a flagman, but it does not appear that any damages were awarded on this account, and they could not lawfully have been awarded. Massachusetts Cent. R. Co. v. Boston, C. & F.R. Co., 121 Mass. 124. The fact that the defendant's lessor, 17 years before the accident represented that a flagman would be required at the crossing, has no tendency to show that due care required one at the time of the accident.
3. There was evidence that, after the defendant came into possession of the railroad, it continued to employ the same station agent--one Carter--who had been employed by the Boston, Clinton & Fitchburg Railroad Company, and that Carter for some time thereafter continued to flag trains at the crossing. The accident was on June 6, 1891; and Carter testified that he ceased to flag the trains a year and a half before the accident; that he was not employed to flag the trains, but did so because he deemed it for the interests of the defendant to do so. Other witnesses testified that they had seen Carter flagging trains at the crossing within a short time before the accident, but they could not state any specific dates after November, 1890. The plaintiff offered in evidence a statement made by Carter, immediately after the accident, explaining why he had not flagged the train. The plaintiff also called Carter as a witness, and offered to show by him that he stated after the accident that he did not flag the train, because the section hands were at work near the crossing when the accident occurred. This evidence was excluded. As a declaration of the defendant's servant, the evidence was inadmissible. Lane v. Bryant, 9 Gray, 245; Williamson v. Railroad Co., 144 Mass. 148, 10 N.E. 790; McKinnon v. Norcross, 148 Mass. 533, 20 N.E. 183. So far as the statement, when offered to be proved by Carter, tends to contradict his testimony that he had not flagged trains at the crossing within a year and a half, we do not regard its exclusion as affording the plaintiff any ground of exception, as we shall assume, in considering the question whether the plaintiff's intestate was in the exercise of due care, that it was customary to flag the crossing.
4. The action is brought under Pub.St. c. 112, § 212, which requires that a person not a passenger shall be "in the exercise of due diligence," to entitle him to recover. The plaintiff's intestate was about 73 years of age, and in good health, except that she was slightly lame. She wore glasses b...
To continue reading
Request your trial