Legal Opinion

Loranger v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1895PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Error to Monroe. (Kinne, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

The accident which resulted in plaintiff’s injury occurred July 31, 1879, at 5 o’clock p. m. The train crew consisted of five men, — conductor, engineer, fireman, and two brakemen, — plaintiff being the head brakeman. The freight train in charge of the crew had been engaged during the day in distributing steel rails. Just before the accident, the engine and tender were standing upon one track, and the rest of the train upon the main *82■track. , Plaintiff was directed to go over upon wbat was «called the “pier track,” and couple some cars to the engine for the purpose of putting them into their…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Jarman v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Marshal v. Dalton Paper MillsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
  2. Balhoff v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Anderson v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Dawson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
  5. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. HamlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1907

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API