Legal Opinion

Plunkett v. Detroit Electric Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1905No. Docket No. 94PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Wayne; Rohnert, J. Case by Matthew Plunkett against the Detroit Electric Railway Company for personal injuries. There was judgment for defendant notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

Plaintiff, a city fireman, was pipe-man on a hose truck, which was proceeding west on High street at 7:45 p. m., February 2, 1900, when it was struck at Hastings street by a north-bound Hastings-street car belonging to defendant. Plaintiff was thrown and injured. Plaintiff brought this action to recover for the injuries sustained, and on the trial, under a charge submitting the question of defendant’s negligence, and that of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, to the jury, a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500.

Defendant thereupon entered a motion for judgment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McKernan v. Detroit Citizens' Street-Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Central Savings Bank v. O'ConnorMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Schmid v. Village of FrankfortMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  4. County of Montmorency v. PutnamMichigan Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Michigan Central Railroad v. Michigan Railroad CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Turner v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Gesualdi v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1945
  4. Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Prowell v. NeuendorfMichigan Supreme Court · 1905

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

Powered by the Exa API