Legal Opinion

Lee v. Michigan Central Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinioij,„,

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

Plaintiff had been employed as a brakeman for about one year. He had been at work in the yard as helper for only a month. He had had no other experience in switching. He did not know Seward, the yard-master, before the accident, except that he had seen him at work in the office. He knew nothing about Seward’s experience or knowledge; said- that he was incapable of giving any opinion as to that. Seward had been acting as yard-master two or three weeks before the accident.

Plaintiff was injured while assisting in making up a freight-train, at about 7:30 a. m. This main was sometimes made up by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Quincy Mining Co. v. KittsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
  2. Hilts v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Western Stone Co. v. WhalenIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Still v. San Francisco & Northwestern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Walkowski v. Penokee & Gogebic Consolidated MinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Hennessy v. GinsbergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API