Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Remarks.

Company employee; short-circuit of a transformer
shocked him, throwing him to ground, and back
was badly sprained.

Company employee; was working on top of pole when
body came in contact with a live wire, and he was
thrown to the ground, also receiving burns on arm
and leg.

Company employee: was working on roof and came
in contact with 66,000-volt wire. Was thrown
down and burned on chest and arm.
Company employee; got against a live wire and re-
ceived a shock, causing burns to wrist and hip.
Received a shock, causing slight burn to right hand.

Company employee; his arm above the rubber glove
came in contact with a live wire, and he received a
shock and very severe burns.

Received a shock, causing burns on right thumb and
forefinger.

Company employee; received shock, causing burn on
left hand.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burns
on fingers and wrist.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burn
to right leg.

Company employee; received slight shock, causing
burns on both hands.

Received shock, causing burns on both hands.

Company employee; was cleaning top of switchboard with brush which crossed the leads of two transformers, burning his hands.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

While washing around service switch received a shock which burned her finger.

Secondary distribution wire came in contact with pri-
mary wire, and when turning on a light he received
a shock and also burns on his right hand.
Company employee; received a shock, causing burn on
right wrist.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burns
to right hand.

Attempted to disengage a rope from a line carrying
13,000 volts, and received a slight shock and burns
on fingers.

While at work on a pole placed hand on an insulator
attached to a wire carrying 13,000 volts, and re-
ceived severe burns on the hand.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burns
on hands.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burn on
little finger.

Was backing horse and wagon into yard and came in
contact with 2,200-volt wire which had fallen down
onto clothesline; received a slight shock.

When handling a lamp socket received slight burns on
right hand caused by short circuit when an electric
light wire was crossed by a street railway signal
wire.

Received a shock, burning right forefinger.

Touched end of live wire with her tongue, and tongue
and throat were badly burned.

Company employee; received a shock, causing burns
on hands.
Company employee; received a shock, causing burns
on both wrists.

[graphic]
[graphic]

APPENDIX H.-COURT DECISIONS.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY AND ANOTHER

v.

COHASSET WATER COMPANY.

216 Mass. 291.

Norfolk. Nov. 13, 1913-Jan. 8, 1914.

Present: RUGG, C.J., HAMMOND, LORING, BRALEY AND

DECOURCY, JJ.

Way, Public. Railroad, Easement in Public Way at Crossing. Damages, for Property taken or impaired by Statutory Authority.

Petition, filed in the Superior Court in the county of Plymouth on Dec. 9, 1910, by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, as lessee, and the Old Colony Railroad Company, as its lessor, against the Cohasset Water Company, a public service corporation, for the assessment by a jury of damages for alleged injury to the property of the petitioners in the portions of King Street, Spring Street and Beechwood Street in the town of Cohasset crossed by the railroad of the petitioners at grade by the acts of the respondent in laying water pipes therein under authority of St. 1886, c. 128.

The respondent demurred to the petition. On Aug. 1, 1912, the petition was amended, and a motion was granted transferring it to the county of Norfolk. The respondent demurred to the petition as amended, and there was a hearing on the demurrer before Pierce, J., who sustained the demurrer, and, the petitioners not wishing to amend their petition further, the judge ordered judgment for the respondent. From the judgment entered in pursuance of this order the petitioners appealed. J. W. Worthington, for the petitioners.

J. G. Palfrey, for the respondent.

LORING, J. This appeal is without merit.

Before the railroads acquired any rights by their locations in the parcels of land here in question the public had acquired highway rights in them. The public's highway rights were not extinguished by the railroad locations. They were modified by the fact that thereafter the same parcel of land was subject to two co-ordinate easements, each of which had to be exercised with due regard for the exercise of the other. (See, for example, Boston & Albany Railroad v. Worcester, 180 Mass. 71; New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Cambridge, 186 Mass. 249.)

Highway uses include the right to lay and maintain water pipes within the limits of the way. (See, for example, New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397.) And the public's highway rights include the laying and maintaining of water pipes by a water company which has authority so to do from the Legislature which speaks for the public. (See, for example, New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397, 399.)

The petitioners acquired no greater rights, in case of the two crossings where they own the fee, by reason of deeds to their predecessors in title which bounded on the highways in question. It may be conceded that, being bounded on the highways, the fee to the center of the highways passed to the grantees in those deeds. But their title to the land covered by the highways was subject to highway uses.

There is no allegation in this petition that the pipes laid by the respondent were laid without due regard for the co-ordinate railroad rights of the petitioners in the land in which the pipes were laid. Nor is there an allegation that any special damage was suffered by the railroad companies. For that reason, if for no other, the case does not come within Hyde v. Fall River, 189 Mass. 439. (See also McKeon v. New England Railroad, 199 Mass. 292, 295.)

What the petitioners seek to be compensated for is for the exercise of the public's highway rights made by the respondent with due regard for the petitioners' co-ordinate railroad rights, where no special damage has ensued.

In our opinion the appeal was frivolous. It follows that the judgment should be affirmed with double costs. It is

So ordered.

MORGAN G. BULKELEY AND OTHERS

V.

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY AND OTHERS.

216 Mass. 432.

Suffolk. Dec. 27, 1913-Jan. 9, 1914.

Present: RUGG, C.J., LORING, BRALEY, SHELDON AND
DECOURCY, JJ.

Public Service Commission. Corporation, Issue of Shares or Evidences of Indebtedness. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad. Convertible Debentures.

Bill in equity, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court on October 25 and amended on Nov. 17, 1913, by certain stockholders of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company under St. 1913, c. 784, § 27, praying the court to annul or review, modify or amend, an order made by the Public Service Commission, established by that chapter approving a proposed issue by that railroad company of evidences of indebtedness amounting to $67,552,000 and also approving the issue of 675,520 shares of the capital stock of that company as asked for in the applications of that company to the commission, which are described in the opinion.

The case was heard by Sheldon, J., who reserved and reported it for determination by the full court, to be given the precedence provided for in the last sentence of section 27 of St. 1913, chapter 784.

E. B. Robbins (of Connecticut) and C. F. Choate, for the defendant, the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company.

N. Matthews and J. F. Jackson, for the plaintiffs.

RUGG, C.J. The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company applied to the Public Service Commission (established by St. 1913, c. 784, § 1) for approval of a proposed issue of evidences of indebtedness to an amount of $67,552,000 for the purpose of funding floating debts, purchasing new equipment and its other uses. The issue was authorized by vote of the stockholders. These proposed evidences of indebtedness were to be payable twenty years after date, to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and to be convertible at the

« PreviousContinue »