Winslow v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by being struck by the defendant’s locomotive engine at Swampscott. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who ruled, at the request of the defendant, that upon the whole evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The ruling that upon the whole evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover was right. While it was proper and necessary for her to cross the tracks to reach the platform from which she was to take her train when it should arrive, there was no reason for crossing when she did, and there was no inducement or invitation held out to her to cross the tracks when she did. Although when she stepped from the platform she looked in both directions, her view of the track upon which she might expect the immediate approach of a train was wholly obstructed by the train going out upon the nearest…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mayo v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Connolly v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Young v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Buckley v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
3Cited by6 opinions
- Koch v. Southern California Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Lundergan v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Ellis v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Young v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Raymond v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.