Boss v. Providence & Worcester Railroad
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Defendant’s petition for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant corporation or its employees. Both trains and the crossings were in the charge of the full complement of careful, competent, and experienced officials, and the trains were running on schedule time. The gates at the Dexter Street crossing were closed and were furnished with proper lights.
Read the full summary
Defendant’s petition for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. There is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant corporation or its employees. Both trains and the crossings were in the charge of the full complement of careful, competent, and experienced officials, and the trains were running on schedule time. The gates at the Dexter Street crossing were closed and were furnished with proper lights. The defendant corporation was not guilty of negligence in stopping the passenger train before it reached the station. The train was stopped in obedience to a…
1Opinion of the CourtTilltnghast, J.
This is a petition for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict is against the evidence and the weight thereof, and that the damages found by the jury are excessive. The main facts in the case are not in dispute, and are substantially as follows, viz.: The plaintiff, who resides at Pawtucket, was a passenger on defendant’s road from Providence to Pawtucket on the night of January 2,1883, leaving Providence in the 6.10 P. M. train, which was due at Pawtucket at 6.22 P. M. The train, which consisted of five cars, ran on the west track going out, and as it approached the Dexter Street…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Stokes v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Hart v. . Hudson River Bridge CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Bowen v. . New York Central Railroad Company.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Ernst v. . Hudson River Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- DeNardo v. Fairmount Foundries Cranston, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1979
- Dennis Waldon Stockton v. Commonwealth of Virginia Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Dennis Waldon Stockton v. Commonwealth of Virginia Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- Consumers Electric Light & Street Railroad v. PryorSupreme Court of Florida · 1902
- Smitson v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Kelly v. Rhode Island Public Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.