Flagg v. Chicago, Detroit & Canada Grand Trunk Junction Railway Co.

21 L.R.A. 835, 55 N.W. 444, 96 Mich. 30, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 712
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 L.R.A. 835 (Flagg v. Chicago, Detroit & Canada Grand Trunk Junction 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
Flagg v. Chicago, Detroit & Canada Grand Trunk Junction Railway Co., 21 L.R.A. 835, 55 N.W. 444, 96 Mich. 30, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 712 (Mich. 1893).

Opinion

Long, J.

Plaintiff lives at Lakeport, about 10 miles from Port Huron. On the day of the accident she was returning from a visit at Port Huron to her home. She had solicited a ride with two young men by the nam§ of Goodman, one about 19 and the other 14 years of age. They had a light wagon, drawn by one horse. On their way they drove to Et. Gratiot, to get from the defendant company two trunks belonging to a party in Lakeport, and for which they had the checks. The horse they were driving was four years old, but well broken. None of these parties had ever been at the depot at Et. Gratiot, and the horse had never been driven there. The situation of the streets, railroad tracks, and buildings of the defendant company is shown by the accompanying plat on page 32.

They drove down Michigan street to the tracks, and before turning into the depot grounds the older of the two boys got out of the wagon, went to the baggage room, and saw the baggage man, who took the checks, and delivered him the two trunks, telling him to drive up to the platform to get them. He put them on a truck, and wheeled them out to the end of the platform, near the train dispatchers’ office, and then returned for his horse [33]*33and wagon. The horse was driven over the first line of tracks through the driveway, and turned round, backing the end of the wagon to the north end of the platform, and opposite the train dispatchers’ office. The older boy got out of the wagon, leaving his brother and the plaintiff in the wagon. The horse became restless, and the younger boy got out and took him by the bits. lie began to roar, when the older boy went to his head. The horse finally started and ran northward, and, swinging to the right across the tracks, overturned the wagon, throwing the plaintiff out, breaking her leg, and otherwise injuring her. The horse became frightened and unmanageable from the noise of an approaching train coming from the rear, and along the track on the east side of the depot. This action was brought to recover damages for the injury thus sustained by the plaintiff, and on the trial she had verdict and judgment for $3,000.

[32]*32

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

Related

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
298 N.W.2d 634 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1980)
Dreier v. McDermott
141 N.W. 315 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Campbell v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
121 N.W. 429 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
McCormick v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.
104 N.W. 390 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
Lemon v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co.
100 N.W. 22 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 L.R.A. 835, 55 N.W. 444, 96 Mich. 30, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-v-chicago-detroit-canada-grand-trunk-junction-railway-co-mich-1893.