TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Railway Co.

Brayton C. Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Railway Company

Day v. Toledo, Canada Southern & Detroit Ry. Co., 4 N.W. 203 (Mich. 1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 20, 1880
Judges
Campbell, Other
Citations
4 N.W. 20342 Mich. 5231880 Mich. LEXIS 699
Headnotes
Contributory negligence — Injury to brakeman — Liability to employee for negligence of fellow employees. An experienced brakeman was ordered by the conductor to attach a ear loaded with lumber which projected forward and compelled him to stoop in making the coupling. In doing so, he delayed a little and his fingers were caught in the coupling-link and hurt. Held that he could not maintain an action against the railway company, as he fully understood the difficulty to be guarded against, and the conductor was not shown to have been in fault in any way. A brakeman cannot hold the company which employs him responsi- > ble for the failure of fellow-servants to take peculiar precautions.
Summary
Error to Wayne. Trespass on the case. Plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Campbell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Campbell, J.

Day sued the railway company for injuries received in having his fingers' caught in coupling cars on a train of which he was brakeman. The train was a freight train, and the car which he claims caused the damage had been brought a few miles from Grosse Isle to Wyandotte, and the plaintiff was unable to say that he had not himself originally attached it to the train. At Wyandotte a car was to be detached, and then the car in question, which was loaded with lumber, was ordered by the conductor to be reeoupled to another car-on the train. The lumber is said, by plaintiff to have projected forward more than usual, so as to make it necessary to stoop down to make the attachment, and while doing so plaintiff delayed a little and his fingers were caught in the coupling-link and hurt.

The court below very properly took the case from the jury. The injury was from one of the risks incident to the occupation of plaintiff, and he knew better than the conductor or any one else the precise difficulty to be guarded against. The conductor was not shown in any way to have been in fault, and it would be absurd to hold a corporation for imputed negligence, when no person except the plaintiff could have been actually guilty of it. And it is very clear that a brakeman cannot hold the company responsible for the failure of any of his ■ fellow servants on the train to take peculiar precautions, even if it could be seen what further care they could have taken. Upon his own showing he was better •informed than any of them. He appears to have been i an experienced brakeman, fully able to take care of himself.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1881–1882: 31885–1886: 21887–1888: 11889–1890: 21891–1892: 31899–1900: 11901–1902: 118812026peak 1881 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tucker v. Northern Terminal Co.68 P. 426 (Or. 1902)
  2. Hunn v. Michigan Central Railroad7 L.R.A. 500 (Mich. 1889)
  3. Smith v. Potter9 N.W. 273 (Mich. 1881)
  4. Hoth v. Peters13 N.W. 219 (Wis. 1882)
  5. Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad23 N.E. 227 (Mass. 1890)
  6. Norfolk & Western R. R. v. Cottrell3 S.E. 123 (Va. 1887)

Most recent

  1. Tucker v. Northern Terminal Co.68 P. 426 (Or. 1902)
  2. People's Savings Bank v. Campau82 N.W. 803 (Mich. 1900)
  3. Brennan v. Michigan Central Railroad53 N.W. 358 (Mich. 1892)
  4. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co. v. Galvin29 Fla. 636 (1892)
  5. Jackson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.104 Mo. 448 (1891)
  6. Lothrop v. Fitchburg Railroad23 N.E. 227 (Mass. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list