Legal Opinion

Conger v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1891PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

This is an action for negligence. At the conclusion of the testimony the court directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Defendant was engaged in transporting logs from a lumber camp to its main line over a temporary branch or spur known as a “logging road,” which was unballasted, as such roads usually are, and followed generally the lay of the land. Plaintiff had been breaking for four years. He had been over this road several times, and had worked upon other roads of like character. In going down a grade upon a train composed of 11 flat-cars with the *78engine, a log fell from…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Frazee v. StottMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Metz v. People's Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Baker v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API