Casista v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. The plaintiff’s declaration alleged that it was the defendants’ duty to fence their right of way, and that this duty was neglected, whereby the plaintiff, a child of tender years, was enabled to stray upon the track and was injured by moving cars. The defendants demurred.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
At common law, railroads were under no obligation to fence their rights of way. Chapin v. Railroad, 39 N. H. 53, 57, and cases cited.
The statute provides that “ the proprietors of every railroad shall erect and maintain a sufficient fence upon each side of their road.” P. S., c. 159, s. 23. But this statute is for the benefit of the owner or occupant of the adjoining land. It confers no rights upon the general public. Hill v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 449, and cases cited. The fact that the plaintiff was a child does not alter the ease. “ The fact that the trespasser is an infant can not have the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Frost v. Eastern RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Hill v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dicaprio v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Thomas v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915