Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Railway Co.

4 N.W. 203, 42 Mich. 523, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 699
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 20, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 4 N.W. 203 (Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Railway Co., 4 N.W. 203, 42 Mich. 523, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 699 (Mich. 1880).

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Day sued the railway company for injuries received in having his fingers' caught in coupling cars on a train of which he was brakeman. The train was a freight train, and the car which he claims caused the damage had been brought a few miles from Grosse Isle to Wyandotte, and the plaintiff was unable to say that he had not himself originally attached it to the train. At Wyandotte a car was to be detached, and then the car in question, which was loaded with lumber, was ordered by the conductor to be reeoupled to another car-on the train. The lumber is said, by plaintiff to have projected forward more than usual, so as to make it necessary to stoop down to make the attachment, and while doing so plaintiff delayed a little and his fingers were caught in the coupling-link and hurt.

The court below very properly took the case from the jury. The injury was from one of the risks incident to the occupation of plaintiff, and he knew better than the conductor or any one else the precise difficulty to be guarded against. The conductor was not shown in any way to have been in fault, and it would be absurd to hold a corporation for imputed negligence, when no person except the plaintiff could have been actually guilty of it. And it is very clear that a brakeman cannot hold the company responsible for the failure of any of his ■ fellow servants on the train to take peculiar precautions, even if it could be seen what further care they could have taken. Upon his own showing he was better •informed than any of them. He appears to have been i an experienced brakeman, fully able to take care of himself.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tucker v. Northern Terminal Co.
68 P. 426 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)
People's Savings Bank v. Campau
82 N.W. 803 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1900)
Brennan v. Michigan Central Railroad
53 N.W. 358 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1892)
Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Galvin
29 Fla. 636 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1892)
Jackson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
104 Mo. 448 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad
23 N.E. 227 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Hunn v. Michigan Central Railroad
7 L.R.A. 500 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Norfolk & Western R. R. v. Cottrell
3 S.E. 123 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1887)
Scott v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.
13 P. 98 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1886)
Gardner v. Michigan Central R. R.
26 N.W. 301 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Northern Central Railway Co. v. Husson
101 Pa. 1 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1882)
Hoth v. Peters
13 N.W. 219 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Smith v. Potter
9 N.W. 273 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 N.W. 203, 42 Mich. 523, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-toledo-canada-southern-detroit-railway-co-mich-1880.