Marden v. Boston & Albany Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, by the administrator of the estate of Anna I. Hartley, for causing her death. The declaration contained three counts, one of which was under Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 213. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Tort, by the administrator of the estate of Anna I. Hartley, for causing her death. The declaration contained three counts, one of which was under Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 213. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dunbar, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows. The plaintiff introduced evidence that his intestate was a school-girl of about eleven years of age, bright, active, and in possession of all her faculties ; and that on May 13, 1891, while she was on her way to school, she was killed by being struck by one of the engines of the defendant on…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
Although one count of the declaration is drawn under the provisions of the Pub. Sts. c. 112, § 213, no proof was offered that the bell was not rung or that the whistle was not sounded for the crossing, and the plaintiff did not ask to go to the jury on that ground. We discuss only the question whether the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence, because, upon the other counts, proof was necessary that the injury was not occasioned by her fault.
She was killed at a crossing of a railroad and a highway, under such circumstances that but for the fact that she was a child the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Granger v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Boicelli v. GianniniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. City of CambridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. EhlertOhio Supreme Court · 1900