Case Name: Lord, Adm'r, v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1906-10-02
Citations: 74 N.H. 39
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lord, Adm’r, v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
Judges: All concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 39–46

Head Matter:
Hillsborough, )
Oct. 2, 1906.
Lord, Adm’r, v. Boston & Maine Railroad.
The duty of a master to warn servants of a transitory danger of the employment extends only to those whose exposure thereto ought reasonably to be anticipated.
The members of a train crew are not guilty of negligence in failing to apprehend that a pedestrian, who occupies a position of safety and knows that a railroad track is in use, will suddenly step in front of moving cars without taking any precaution to avoid injury.
A railroad company is not liable for injuries to a pedestrian whose presence was not reasonably to be foreseen, unless the employees of the corporation failed to use due care to avoid a collision after discovering his danger.
The failure of a railroad company to prescribe proper rules for the protection of persons likely to be in the path of moving cars does not render the corporation liable for inj uries to one whose presence upon the right of way was not reasonably to be anticipated.
Case, for negligently causing tlie death of Cyrille Lebrecque, the plaintiff’s intestate. Trial by jury. At the close of the plaintiif.’s evidence the defendants moved for a nonsuit on the grounds (1) that the evidence did not warrant a finding of due care on the part of the decedent, and (2) that it could not properly be found that the defendants were guilty of negligence which was the sole cause of the injury complained of. The motion was denied upon the first ground, subject to the defendants’ exception, and was granted upon the second ground, subject to the plaintiff’s exception. Transferred from the September term, 19 04, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J.
Lebrecque was an able-bodied man in full possession of his faculties. During the twenty years prior to his death he had been employed by the defendants at different times for about seven years, working as trackman, shoveler, and laborer in the Manchester repair shop. February 15, 1900, he was sent with others to repair a washout at Kelley’s Falls. The crew left Manchester early in the morning, on a train made up, from front to rear, of ten coal cars loaded with ashes, five empty flat ears, engine, combination car, and caboose. The men rode in the caboose and combination car, and left their dinners in them while they were at work. The train stopped before reaching the washout, and the empty cars were dropped in on a side track 400 feet long, which led to a gravel pit and was controlled by a switch in the main line 620 feet south of the washout. A switch in the side track at a point 190 feet south of the main-line switch controlled another side track, located between tbe main fine and tbe pit track and called the middle track. Between the switches the pit track was built on an embankment, on either shoulder of which one might walk in safety when the track was in use. There was a slight descent in the grade from the washout to both switches, and a car starting from the washout would move into either side track by its momentum. The barbed wire fence on the westerly side of the railroad extended down the pit track to a point about twenty feet south of the second switch, where it turned and crossed both side tracks, and then continued in a southerly direction between the middle track and the main line. The side tracks were so near. together at the point where they were crossed by the fence that one set of bars was sufficient for both and provided the only passageway through the fence. The shortest route from the mainline switch to the gravel pit was by way of the pit track.
After dropping the flat cars, the train proceeded to the washout, some of the crew being detailed to unload the foremost car while others were sent to the gravel pit. In making repairs, the loaded cars were run up to the washout, the forward car was emptied, and the train was then backed down the main line. Just before the main-line switch was reached, the pin which coupled the empty car was pulled and the rest of the train moved away from that car. The switch was set for the side track as soon as the train had passed over it, and the empty car ran in upon the middle track by its momentum. This process was repeated until seven were unloaded and run in upon the middle track, when the three remaining cars were left at the washout and the balance of the train backed down to Manchester. The engine returned with the caboose and combination car at quarter past twelve and stopped on the main line near the bars. The men at the gravel pit then quit work, walked up the side track and through the bars, and entered the cars where they had left their dinners. Lebrecque worked at the washout until about eleven o’clock, when he was sent to the gravel pit and remained there until work was suspended for dinner. At noon he became irritated because the men were not ordered to quit work. He was assured by the foreman that he should have a full hour for dinner, but continued to talk about working overtime, and was finally told that he might leave if he was dissatisfied. He entered the caboose with others and was not noticed again until he was seen by the trainmen just before his injury.
After the shovelers had entered the cars for dinner, the engine was taken to the washout, coupled to the three cars which had b(een left there, and backed down in order to run the cars upon the middle track. When the engine started on this trip, one of the brakemen set tlie middle-track switch and then walked toward the inain-line switch. When he had nearly reached the latter point he passed Lebrecque, who was walking in the direction of the •gravel pit on the westerly side of the side track, but so far from the rail that he was in no danger of injury by passing cars. Lebrecque had left his coat at the gravel pit, and it was supposed he was going after it. After the engine had passed, the brakeman ¡set the switch for the side track and let the cars run in. He then looked down the side track, saw Lebrecque just stepping over the rail, and shouted to him, but was unable to tell whether his warning was heard. At this time the engineer and fireman were on the locomotive, and the bell was rung continuously. The conductor was on the front of the engine, where he had gone for the purpose of uncoupling the cars. The second brakeman rode on the middle car for the purpose of controlling the cars after their .detachment from the engine. Just before he reached the switch he saw Lebrecque on the west side of the track and at a safe distance from it. He paid no more attention to him until he heard a .shout, when he looked again and saw Lebrecque walking between the rails. The front end of the forward car was then about sixty feet from. Lebrecque, and the brakeman was powerless to prevent an accident. The fireman also shouted a warning to Lebrecque, who looked around, but was unable to escape. The accident happened about 110 feet south of the main-line switch, .at which point the distance between the main line and the side track is about twenty feet.
The attention of the shovelers was not directed to the methods employed in shifting cars upon the side tracks, but they would have seen how the work was done if they had looked when they were at the washout or at the gravel pit. The only rule of the defendants in relation to flying switches was that they were to be made only when absolutely necessary. It was necessary to make them at the place of the accident. There was no evidence that other rules in respect to flying switches were in force on other vailroads, or that other roads employed larger train crews when doing work of that nature.
Taggart, Tuttle, Burroughs ¿f- Wyman and Andrews Andrews, for the plaintiff.
Branch Branch and William H. Sawyer, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Young, J.
The plaintiff: claims that the defendants were in lault because they failed to notify the deceased of the dangers incident to the service by reason of the method they employed in setting off cars on side tracks like that leading to the gravel pifc Conceding that the danger incident to moving, cars in this way is a matter in respect to which it is the master's duty to notify his servants, the plaintiff cannot be heard to complain of the defendants' failure to do so unless there is evidence from which it cam be found that they ought to have anticipated the decedent would be where he was at the time he was killed.; for the duty of notifying servants of the transitory dangers of their employment is imposed on the master for the benefit of those servants only whom he ought tb anticipate will be injured if he fails to notify them. McGrill v. Company, 70 N. H. 125; Batchelder v. Railroad, 72 N. H. 528. In order, therefore, to determine whether the plaintiff can be heard to complain that the defendants were in fault because of their failure to notify the deceased of the danger which was the cause of his death, it is necessary to inquire whether they ought to have anticipated that he would step onto this track before the cars had passed him.
Since a person is bound to anticipate all that the ordinary man would anticipate in his situation, the test to determine whether the defendants ought to have anticipated the deceased's action is to inquire whether an ordinary man, who knew all the defendants either knew of the situation and its dangers or would have known if they had used ordinary care for their servant's safety, would have anticipated that Lebrecque was likely to step upon the track, before the cars passed him. If this were a suit against the train crew, it would be necessary to determine whether they should have anticipated Lebrecque's action in order to determine whether or not they were in fault for not anticipating it. It is clear that, the test to determine that question would be the same as that to. determine whether the defendants were in fault; for the evidence shows that the train crew knew all that could be known of the situation and its dangers.
It could be found that the train crew were negligent if there was a time, however short, when they could, and the deceased could not, have prevented the accident by the use of ordinary care. There is no view of the case in which it can be found that the defendants were and the train crew were not in fault, if it could not be found that the train crew were bound to anticipate the action of the deceased. Consequently the plaintiff will not be prejudiced if this case is considered as though the train crew were the defendants. The test to determine whether or not the train crew were in fault would be to inquire (1) whether they ought to have anticipated that the deceased would, do what he did at the time of the accident; and if not, (2) whether there was anything they could have done to prevent an accident after they knew of his danger.
1. If tbe deceased bad been walking directly toward tbe sidetrack without apparently noticing the cars, instead of beside and at a safe distance from it, it could not be found that the train crew ought to have anticipated that he would step in front of the cars-they were dropping in on this track. Gahagan v. Railroad, 70 N. H. 441; Waldron v. Railroad, 71 N. H. 362. If it could not be found they ought to have anticipated that he would step onto-the track under such circumstances, it is obvious that it cannot be-found they were in fault for not anticipating that he would turn suddenly toward the track and step in front of the approaching-cars, for there was no apparent reason why he should do so. There was no evidence from which it could be found that it was-better walking between the rails than on the shoulder of the-embankment, that there was anything on the other side of the track which was liable to attract his attention, or that the train-crew could have thought he was going anywhere but to the gravel pit. They knew there was no reason, if he was going there, why he should step between the rails until he got to the bars, and that the cars would pass him before he got half-way there. Neither was there any evidence of anything in his appearance which ought-to have led them to think he was so engrossed in his own affairs-that he might turn from a place where he knew he was safe to a place where he must have known he might be in danger, without looking to see whether or not he could do so in safety; for whether' or not he knew how flying switches were made, he knew those-tracks were in use on that day, and must have known that the cars were dropped in on them in some way, because it was obvious-that only one end of the side track was connected with the main line. There was therefore no evidence from which it could be found that the defendants ought to have anticipated that the-deceased would do what he did at the time he was injured.
2. Neither was there any evidence that the train crew could have done anything after they knew of the deceased's danger which they did not do to avoid an accident. Consequently there-is no view of the case in which it could be found the defendants, were in fault.
Plaintiff's exception overruled..
All concurred.
Taggart, Tuttle, Burroughs Wyman and Andrews Andrews, .for the motion.
Branch Branch and William M. Sawyer, opposed.