From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island. PROVIDENCE
Apr 18, 1893
29 A. 448 (R.I. 1893)

Opinion

April 18, 1893.

Acquiescence in the use of a passage-way over a railroad for so long a time that the company may be presumed to have known and assented to such use, is all that is required to charge it with the duty of exercising reasonable care for the protection of persons passing over such way across its tracks.

ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries. Heard on demurrer to the declaration.

Elisha W. Maguire John D. Thurston, for plaintiff.

Walter B. Vincent, for defendant.


The declaration avers that there was on the day of the accident, and long before that time, a passageway or travelled road over and across the defendant's railroad and its tracks and beyond, used by the public in crossing and recrossing said railroad, which user had for a long time theretofore been acquiesced in by the defendant.

The defendant demurs to the declaration because it does not set forth definitely for how long a period the use of this travelled road had been acquiesced in by the defendant.

We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to aver definitely the length of time that such user had been so acquiesced, but that the allegation of the declaration is sufficient. Acquiescence in the use of the way for a length of time sufficiently long that the defendant may be presumed to have a knowledge of such use and to assent to it, is all that is required to charge it with the duty of exercising reasonable care for the protection of persons passing over such way across its tracks. Paterson's Railway Accident Law, § 188, note 3. Clampit v. Chicago, St. Paul Kansas City Railway Co. 50 N.W. Rep. 673.

Demurrer overruled.


Summaries of

Armstrong v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island. PROVIDENCE
Apr 18, 1893
29 A. 448 (R.I. 1893)
Case details for

Armstrong v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:EFFIE M. ARMSTRONG pro ami. vs. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD…

Court:Supreme Court of Rhode Island. PROVIDENCE

Date published: Apr 18, 1893

Citations

29 A. 448 (R.I. 1893)
29 A. 448

Citing Cases

Perry v. St. Jean

In this state a social guest upon the premises of another is a mere licensee to whom the occupier of the land…

Pagliaro v. Pezza

However, while conceding that this court has never expressly passed upon the question, plaintiff nevertheless…