Walker v. Boston & Maine Railroad

• Decision Date: 15 November 1879
• Citation: 128 Mass. 8
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Sarah F. Walker, administratrix, v. Boston & Maine Railroad. Mary L. Miller, administratrix, v. Same

128 Mass. 8

Sarah F. Walker, administratrix, v. Boston & Maine Railroad.

Mary L. Miller, administratrix, v. Same

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 15, 1879

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Two actions of tort, each for a personal injury occasioned to the plaintiff's intestate by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Trial in this court, before Ames, J., who reported the cases for the determination of the full court in substance as follows:

On the day of the accident, a freight train consisting of forty-seven loaded cars, drawn by two engines, started from the defendant's station in Boston in the direction of Andover. Charles C. Walker, the plaintiff's intestate in the first case, and Carl Miller, the plaintiff's intestate in the second case, were the engineer and fireman respectively of the second engine. On arriving at Ballardvale, the train, in consequence of the displacement of a switch, was suddenly turned off upon a side track, upon which two other cars were standing, and, although the forward engine was not thrown from the track, there was a general wreck of the train, the cars were piled together, and great damage was done to the train and to the road-bed. In consequence of this accident, Walker and Miller were so badly injured that they died, Walker in a few minutes, and Miller in about one hour.

Edward Marland testified, for the plaintiffs, that he was the defendant's station agent at Ballardvale, and, as such sold tickets and had charge of the station; that at the time of the accident he was in Boston; that, when he left Ballardvale, the switches were all right; that, by the rules of the corporation, all station agents have charge of the switches, tracks, sidings, &c. at their stations, and would be held responsible for the security and position of the switches; that he had a copy of these rules for his direction, and was responsible accordingly; that he was in Boston on that day on the business of the defendant, and went to see their freight auditor in the course of his duty; that he had the consent of the defendant's general superintendent to go to Boston, but not at any particular time; that he went perhaps once or twice a month, sometimes on the defendant's business, and sometimes on his own that when he went, he left his wife in charge of the station and that he was the postmaster at Ballardvale, keeping the post-office at the station. On cross-examination, he testified that when he left on the day in question he notified the flagman; that the amount of business at the post-office was very small, and did not in the least interfere with his duties as station agent; that he did not think the defendant was aware of his absence in Boston on all occasions, and could not say that he ever went by their orders; that when he said he went there by their consent, he meant only that he went to their office and reported, and no objection was made; that there were a great many switchmen, conductors, road-masters and section bosses in the defendant's employ, and many of the persons employed by the defendant were entrusted with keys to the switches; and that these persons, William Horan being one of them, had been long...