Beauchamp v. Michigan Central Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentBird, J.
I am not in accord with the conclusion reached in this case by Mr. Justice Sharpe. In reaching the conclusion which he has he has, in my judgment, decided questions of fact as questions of law.
The case of Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Strange, 156 Ky. 439 (161 S. W. 239), lays down the proper rule to be applied in such cases:
_ “It is the rule that brakemen on a train assume the risks and hazards arising from such jerks as are usual and ordinarily incident to the prudent operation of the train, and if injured or killed as a result of such a jerk there cam be no recovery; but if killed or injured…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. HortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. GossettIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Devine v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1914
- Jones v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. StalcupCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.