Lee v. Michigan Central Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
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
- Quincy Mining Co. v. KittsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Hilts v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Ry.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by4 opinions
- Western Stone Co. v. WhalenIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Still v. San Francisco & Northwestern Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Walkowski v. Penokee & Gogebic Consolidated MinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Hennessy v. GinsbergNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920