Shufelt v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Osceola. - (Judkins, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
I concur witb my Brother Montgomery that there was no negligence in the rate of speed of the defendant’s train, or in the piling of the wood along its track. I think the circuit judge was correct in directing a verdict for the defendant.
1. The plaintiff’s wife was herself guilty' of contributory *328negligence. The road was dry and hard. She had two horses, and a lumber wagon with a box, and a spring seat fixed upon the box. She did not stop her team to listen. She had been for a long time familiar with the crossing, and had frequently driven over it. When upon the little rise of ground from 90…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Beauchamp v. Saginaw Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Robinson v. Flint & Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by34 opinions
- Davis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Elias v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Nipp's Adm'xCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Wilkinson v. Oregon Short Line RailroadUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. BennettCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.