Darrigan v. New York & New England Railroad
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover for an injury caused by the negligence of the defendants, a railroad company; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. The defendants suffered a default and -were heard in damages before Stoddard, J. The following facts were found by the court. The defendant is a railroad corporation, operating a line of single tracked road from Boston, Massachusetts, through the state of Connecticut to the Hudson river.
Read the full summary
Action to recover for an injury caused by the negligence of the defendants, a railroad company; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. The defendants suffered a default and -were heard in damages before Stoddard, J. The following facts were found by the court. The defendant is a railroad corporation, operating a line of single tracked road from Boston, Massachusetts, through the state of Connecticut to the Hudson river. In the trausaction of its business its line, at the time of the injury complained of, was divided into two divisions; the western division extended from Hartford to…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
On December 14th, 1882, there wei’e two special or irregular trains going in opposite directions on the western division of the defendant’s single track railroad. These trains were run as directed by telegrams from *299the train-dispatcher in the division superintendent’s office at Hartford. The train going east was a construction train. About twelve o’clock it was at Southford station, where it received an order from the train-dispatcher,to “run to Towantic as a special train ahead of Ho. 6, and then work between Towantic and Waterbury as a special train until six o’clock p. M., and protect…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ford v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Barbaroux v. BarkerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. HuntleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Holden v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McLallenIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Hunn v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- George v. EricsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Nolan v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. BerrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.