Case Name: Benjamin B. Sewell, Jr., vs. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1898-05-20
Citations: 171 Mass. 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin B. Sewell, Jr., vs. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Benjamin B. Sewell, Jr., vs. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company.
Suffolk.
March 18, 1898.
May 20, 1898.
Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowlton, & Lathrof, JJ.
Personal Injuries occasioned by riding Bicycle into a Train — Due Care.
An action cannot be maintained for personal injuries occasioned to a boy nearly thirteen years of age who rides a bicycle headlong into a train without taking any precaution, his mind at the time being full of something else, and there being nothing to excuse him for not looking if he could see, or for not getting off his wheel and advancing cautiously if he could not see.
Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by riding a bicycle into a train. Trial in the Superior Court before Blodgett, J., who, at the close of the evidence, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
J. O. Teele, for the plaintiff.
C. F. Choate, Jr., for the defendant.

Opinion:
Holmes, J.
This is an action for personal injuries caused by running into a train at a crossing. The judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the case is-here on exceptions. The plaintiff told his own story very fairly. He was nearly thirteen at the time. He was riding a bicycle along a street in Hull, called Y Street, toward the seashore, and was looking straight ahead, watching for a steamer which he wanted to see. The street ran to an electric railroad and continued on the other side of it, but the crossing was private and so marked, although planked by the railroad company. The plaintiff knew of the railroad and that trains ran upon it. He paid no attention, did not look out for the cars, but rode across the first track and on the second was struck and hurt. He says that he could have stopped almost as quickly as if he had been on foot if he had looked up the track and had seen the train. He does not pretend that he was relying upon receiving warning of an approaching train, and it is not necessary to consider whether there is any evidence that the train did not give whatever warn ing was usual and proper, (Hubbard v. Boston Albany Railroad, 159 Mass. 320,) or whether it was bound to give any warning at all. The case is the simple one of a boy riding headlong into a train without taking any precaution, his mind at the time being full of something else. There is no evidence of due care on his part, as there was in Tyler v. New York New England Railroad, 137 Mass. 238. There is nothing to excuse him for not looking if he could see, or for not getting off his wheel and advancing cautiously if he could not see. Creamer v. West End Street Railway, 156 Mass. 320, 324. Chase v. Maine Central Railroad, 167 Mass. 383, 387. Butterfield v. Western Railroad, 10 Allen, 532. Robertson v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 180 Penn. St. 43.
Exceptions overruled.