Hayball v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant for injuries from a machine he claims was out of repair, from which judgment the defendant appeals, claiming the court should have directed a verdict in its favor. If the case made by the testimony of the plaintiff himself is such as to authorize its submission to the jury, the verdict should stand; otherwise a verdict should have been directed for the defendant.

The plaintiff is a machinist. June 23, 1894, he was in the employ of the defendant, using a machine called a “shaper.” This machine was used for the purpose of planing steel,…