Legal Opinion

Fish v. Grand Trunk Western Railway

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 6, 1936No. Docket No. 19, Calendar No. 38,114PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Rehearing.

Sharpe, J.

The facts in this cause were stated ante, 273, to which reference is made. When the cause came on for trial and at the close of plaintiff’s proof, the defense made a motion for a directed verdict upon the theory that the record disclosed no positive act of negligence in placing the protruding object nor facts showing actual or constructive notice of the claimed projection. The trial court granted the motion, from which plaintiff appealed.

Citation of authority is unnecessary to substantiate the rule that if plaintiff is to recover in this action lie must prove defendant…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Schoepper v. Hancock Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Burghardt v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  5. Wilkins v. BradfordMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Brown v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Anderson v. KearlyMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Kovacs v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Collings v. Northwestern HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
  5. Trent v. Pontiac Transportation Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1937

19 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