Legal Opinion

Thrall v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1932No. Docket No. 2, Calendar No. 36,059PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.

This case has been here twice, reported in 249 Mich. 440 and 254 Mich. 197, and facts are there stated. Plaintiff’s decedent was a section foreman. He directed his section men, one of them Baker, to load a large drill on the section motor car, which they did. The car, at decedent’s direction, was run backward, the drill projecting somewhat over the then forward end of the car. There is evidence of general orders by the foreman to his men to watch tools and of particular order to Baker to watch the drill while the car was being so moved, and that it was the duty of the men to obey the orders.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fishleigh v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Goonen v. Ann Arbor RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Thrall v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Thrall v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lucy v. DowdMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Michigan Fire & Marine Insurance v. Pretty Lake Vacation Camp, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka R. Co. v. KirkbrideSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API