Grand v. Michigan Central Railroad

11 L.R.A. 402, 47 N.W. 837, 83 Mich. 564, 1890 Mich. LEXIS 998
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 24, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 11 L.R.A. 402 (Grand v. Michigan Central Railroad) 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
Grand v. Michigan Central Railroad, 11 L.R.A. 402, 47 N.W. 837, 83 Mich. 564, 1890 Mich. LEXIS 998 (Mich. 1890).

Opinions

Champlin, C. J.

This is an action on the case for negligently killing a brakeman who was in the employment of the defendant.

The declaration contains three counts. The first count sets forth the employment of Allen J. Shivelle as a brakeman on one of defendant's freight trains; that [565]*565Albion is a station on defendant’s road, where trains are made up, and containing a yard for that purpose; that plaintiff, with , other employés of defendant, were engaged in making up a train, and attaching cars together, and, in such employment it became and was the duty of Shivelle—

“To fasten and couple a certain car, then standing upon the track occupied and used by the defendant, with and to certain other cars, which were then being moved and pushed by such locomotive engine towards and against the car so to be coupled and attached to them; and the plaintiff avers that, in order to couple such cars together, it became and was necessary for said Shivelle to step over and inside the rails of said track upon which .said cars were, and over a certain frog or switch denominated a f split switch,’ and there remain until the said cars were forced so close together that they could be coupled and attached by means of the apparatus for that purpose provided; and that, if said switch or frog had been properly constructed, or had been properly blocked, as it was the duty of said defendant to have done, it would have been entirely practicable and safe for said Shivelle to have stepped over said rails, and remained between said cars and the rails of said railroad track, while engaged in coupling said car's. But the said plaintiff avers that said railroad track and switch were not properly constructed, and said switch was not blocked, nor stopped up, so that the feet of employés and others could nob enter, but was improperly constructed for the purpose of coupling said cars, to such an extent as to render it highly dangerous to said Shivelle to couple such cars in the ordinary and usual method hereinbefore stated, of which dangerous and improper construction .and defects, and unsafe condition, of said railroad tracks and switch or frog, the said defendant was then and there well knowing, and of which dangerous and unsafe condition the said Shivelle was ignorant.
“And said plaintiff avers that the said Shivelle, not having been informed or knowing of the dangerous and unsafe condition and improper construction of said tracks and switch or frog, or the danger incurred in coupling .said cars at that place, did then and there attempt to [566]*566couple and attach, together such cars upon such defective and dangerous track, as said cars were being pushed and driven together by means of said locomotive engine. Yet the defendant, well knowing the premises, and that it was its duty to block all such switches and frogs, while it was so the occupier of said railroad, while there was-such defective, unsafe, and dangerous track as aforesaid, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at Albion, aforesaid, negligently, wrongfully, and unjustly permitted the track and switch to be and continue in such defective, improper, unsafe, and dangerous condition; that by means of the premises, and for want of proper apparatus, and for want of blocking in said switch or frog, the said Shivelle, while then and there engaged in the act of coupling-together said cars upon said track, with all due care and diligence, was necessarily and unavoidably caught by his-foot in said switch or frog, and between said cars, and was then and there killed.”

The second count sets forth that Shivelle was engaged in coupling two cars together, and that defendant neglected so to adjust, fill, or block all frogs, switches,, and guard-rails on its road as to prevent the feet of its employés, and-other persons, from being caught therein..

The third count, which was permitted to be added upon the trial, avers that it was the duty of defendant so to adjust, fill, or block all frogs, switches, and guardrails on its road, and in said yard, as to prevent the feet of its employés, or other persons, from being caught, therein. And the plaintiff avers that the defendant wholly neglected this duty, and negligently, wrongfully,, and unjustly permitted a certain switch, known as “the Split switch,” in said yard, to be and remain unblocked and unfilled. It then avers that Shivelle, while in the-exercise of due care, and in the act of uncoupling cars, was caught by the foot, and killed by the train passing over his body. And the plaintiff averred that the said Shivelle came to his death then and there by means of [567]*567the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in adopting and using, and in permitting to be used, Such dangerous switches upon its railroad. The last count is the only one which sets up the injury as having occurred by uncoupling cars.

The testimony for plaintiff showed that Shivelle had been in the employ of defendant for seven years, and, during the last two years, as brakeman. He was- 25 years of age, and was killed at about half' past 6 o’clock on the evening of November 7, 1887. The train upon which he was braking started from Jackson junction to go west to Michigan City, a distance of 153 miles. When it arrived at Albion, it stopped to do some switching. Cars were »to be left, and some taken on, at that place. The brakeman doing the switching has command of the train for the time being. The engineer is under his control, and he conducts its movements through appropriate signs from the brakeman. At the time of the accident, Shivelle was the brakeman doing the work, and he had control of the train, which was cut in two, leaving the way car upon the main track. He had thrown one car upon the side track, and there was another to be left, which was between two cars in that portion of the train attached to the engine, and which had passed the switch to the west, and lay on the main track. Shivelle threw the switch so as to permit the train to back east on the main track. The switch lever was on the south side. By throwing the switch for the main track, the south arm of the switch was brought in close contact with the main rail on that side, and the north arm was brought away from the north main rail, about four or five inches at the extreme end, leaving the switch open upon that side. The ballasting came flush [568]*568with the top of the ties, presenting a smooth level surface between the rails.

The switches used upon the main line of the Michigan Central Eailroad are what are designated as “split switches,” and had been in use by defendant since the year 1883. In the construction of this switch a “frog” is not used. The movable rails of the switch are both between the stationary rails of the road, which, at the point of contact with the switch, are not parallel to each other. The one diverging forms a permanent and immovable rail of the switch track. The ends of the switch rails are planed on the inside, from a point about seven feet back, so as to form an acute angle at the point on the outside of the rail. In the use of this switch, one side is always open, and- the other closed; that is, by closing one side the other is opened. Back of the planed portion, when the switch is open, the rail of the switch, and that of the main track, are nearly parallel and about two inches apart for a distance of about seven feet, when they diverge, gradually leaving a wedge-shaped opening between the rails. Chi the side of the switch which is closed, back of the planed portion, there is a wedge-shape opening between the rails.

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

Related

Keeley v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
158 Ill. App. 237 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Brannock v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
126 S.W. 552 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Swick v. Ætna Portland Cement Co.
111 N.W. 110 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Norgate
141 F. 247 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Hall v. West & Slade Mill Co.
81 P. 915 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
Langlois v. Dunn Worsted Mills
57 A. 910 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1904)
Martin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
59 L.R.A. 698 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Jones v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad
86 N.W. 838 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
Peter v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.
46 L.R.A. 224 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Secord v. Chicago & Michigan Lake Shore Railroad
65 N.W. 550 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Thompson
33 S.W. 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1895)
Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Leathers
40 N.E. 1094 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Krause v. Morgan
53 Ohio St. (N.S.) 26 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1895)
Eastman v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
60 N.W. 309 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Railway Co. v. Davis
15 S.W. 895 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 L.R.A. 402, 47 N.W. 837, 83 Mich. 564, 1890 Mich. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-v-michigan-central-railroad-mich-1890.