Eastman v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Jackson. (Peck, J.) Negligence case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.
Plaintiff, while engaged in uncoupling cars in the defendant’s yard, and while between moving cars for that purpose, got his foot caught in a stub switch, and was seriously injured.
3 How. Stat. § 3397a, provides that all railroad companies “ shall and are hereby required * * * to so adjust, fill, or block the frogs, switches, and guard rails on their roads, in all yards, divisional and terminal stations, and where trains are made up, as to prevent the feet of employés or other persons from being caught therein.”
Defendant insists that a verdict should have been directed in its favor because—
1.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hunn v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Sweet v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Grand v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- King v. Ford River Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Gardner v. Michigan Central R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. GossettIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Jones v. Pere Marquette RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Knapp v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Lake Erie & W. R. v. CraigCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Wright v. Southern Pacific Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1896
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.