Lyttle v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kent. (Burch, J.) Negligence ease. Defendant brings error, The facts are stated, in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
On June 19, 1886, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a switchman in its yards at Muskegon. He had been in such employment since February of the same year, and had an experience of about three years before that time as a switchman for the company. While on the. foot-board at the rear end of a tank to a locomotive, the engine running backwards, he was injured in attempting to uncouple cars. He brought suit against the defendant in the Kent circuit court, and recovered a verdict of $4,000..
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved that the court direct á verdict…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Conroy v. Vulcan Iron WorksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Greene v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- VanDusen v. LetellierMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Brabbits v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Rice v. . Eureka Paper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Ashman v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Burch v. Southern Pacific Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1909
- Schroeder v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Roux v. Blodgett & Davis Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1891
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.