Allen v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motion by Defendant. The facts appear in the opinion. Trainmen must keep sharp lookout to avoid collisions at crossings, and it is the duty of trainmen to avoid a collision if they can. It is the duty of both engineer and fireman to keep a lookout ahead of their locomotive.
Read the full summary
On Motion by Defendant. The facts appear in the opinion. Trainmen must keep sharp lookout to avoid collisions at crossings, and it is the duty of trainmen to avoid a collision if they can. It is the duty of both engineer and fireman to keep a lookout ahead of their locomotive. If the employees of a railroad company, whose duty it is to watch the tracks, fail to discover the peril of persons at a crossing, when reasonable attention would have enabled them to do so in time to have prevented the infliction of injury, the company is liable. Purinton v. M. C. B.. B. Co., 78 Maine, 569; Garland v.…
1Opinion of the CourtStrout, J.
Plaintiff had a verdict for injuries sustained at a highway crossing of defendant in North Berwick. We are asked to set it aside as against evidence.
*405At the place of the accident there were six tracks, where trains were made up. It was broad daylight. A freight train had crossed the highway, and stopped within twenty or thirty feet of the crossing on • the northerly track, the locomotive heading towards the highway. The conductor left his cab and went to the rear of the train to unshackle a car. Plaintiff was approaching from the southerly side, in plain sight of the train, but was not seen by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1907
- Bergeron v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1916