Worthen v. Grand Trunk Railway
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort against a common carrier, for personal injuries occasioned to a passenger, by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.
Read the full summary
Tort against a common carrier, for personal injuries occasioned to a passenger, by the alleged negligence of the defendant. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care. Trial in this court, before Lord, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows: The plaintiff was injured by the collision of an express train on the defendant’s road, in which he was riding, with an accommodation train standing on the same track, at the depot at Detroit Junction in Michigan, at which depot the train on which he was riding was to stop, and he was to…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The plaintiff was injured by a collision at the depot at Detroit Junction. He testified that the train in which he was riding was running at an unusual rate of speed, and that for five miles before it reached Detroit Junction it was “ racing with a train on the Michigan Southern road, which was parallel with the defendant’s road and was in sight all the way.” We are of opinion that the question proposed by the defendant to its conductor, whether the train was running at the usual speed at this point, should not have been excluded. It is true that the fact that the defendant was running at the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Larson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Weinschenk v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- McCrea v. Beverly Gas & Electric Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Cody v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- McDermott v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.