Snow v. Fitchburg Railroad
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Thomas v. Southern Railway Co. (N.C. 1917)
- Bell v. Houston & S. R. (La. 1913)
- Huddleston v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. (Ark. 1909)
- Mangum v. North Carolina Railroad (N.C. 1907)
- Clifford v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1906)
- Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1905)
- Carver v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. (Iowa 1903)
- St. Louis, C. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Waggoner (Ill. App. Ct. 1900)
- Shaw v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. (Mich. 1900)
- Fletcher v. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1897)
- Ayres v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1896)
- Williams v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (Ky. Ct. App. 1895)
- Fletcher v. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad (D.C. Cir. 1895)
- Bradford v. Boston & Maine Railroad (Mass. 1894)
- Galloway v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (Minn. 1894)
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Simms (Ill. App. Ct. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff was a passenger on the railroad of the defendant, and properly on the platform at the station, waiting to make a necessary change from one train to another. There is no claim that she was in an improper place, or in any way wanting in due care. The plaintiff sustaining this relation to the defendant, and being in this pláce, the defendant was bound to exercise towards her such care and diligence as could reasonably be exercised to protect her from such injuries as human foresight could anticipate and prevent.
The defendant voluntarily furnished a car to run on its express train, from which it knew that mail-bags were to be thrown at the station where the plaintiff was, when the train was under full speed. Obviously, unless good judgment and great care were used by the mail-agent in throwing out the bags, which had the momentum of a train moving at the rate of thirty miles an hour, or forty-four feet a second, danger was likely to result to passengers on the platform of the station.
There was evidence in the case tending to show that mailbags had not unfrequently been thrown from this car, in such a way as to strike upon the platform where the plaintiff stood; and if this evidence was believed, the court was justified in
We are of opinion that the court was justified in refusing to rule, as requested by the defendant, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. '
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.