Legal Opinion

Thayer v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1892PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, J.

Plaintiff’s horse was frightened by three sharp whistles from a locomotive when within from 30 to 50 feet of defendant’s tracks, on a narrow approach on a highway known as the “ O’Hara Highway,” and she was thrown out of her buggy down an embankment. The highway runs east and west, and crosses the tracks over a fill between two cuts, one about 20 rods south of the highway, and the other from 40 to 80 rods north. Both cuts are deep enough to hide an approaching train. The grade from the crossing north to the cut rises about 18 feet, and between the cuts the grade is raised from 3 to 6 feet…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Geveke v. Grand Rapids & Indiana RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Wormsdorf v. Detroit City Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Maltby v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Thompson v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hoskins v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Tobias v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Gage v. Pontiac, Oxford & Northern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Hudson v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1924
  5. Allen v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897

7 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