Haas v. Grand Rapids & I.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1882 |
| Citation | 47 Mich. 401,11 N.W. 216 |
| Parties | HAAS v. GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
The failure to erect caution boards at railroad crossings as required by the statute does not necessarily make the railroad company responsible for damages occasioned by a collision with one of its trains at the crossing.
The caution board is for the purpose of a notification to those who are passing along the road; and where a party is familiar with the crossing, and has frequently been over it, and had it in mind on the occasion in question as he approached it he cannot be said to have been injured by the failure to set up the caution.
The fact that the approach of a railroad to a highway crossing is obscured by embankments, or otherwise, imposes upon travelers by the highway as well as upon the railroad company special care to avoid collisions.
A railroad company is not, as matter of law, under obligation to station a flagman at a road crossing in the country because of the approach to it being partially concealed by embankments or otherwise.
A team collided with a railway train at a road crossing, and the driver was killed. The railroad and the highway were both below the general surface of the ground, and an approaching train could only be seen occasionally by one driving towards the crossing. The driver was familiar with the crossing, but except that he checked his team for a moment some four rods from the crossing, he did not appear to have observed any precaution. The engine whistle was duly sounded when the crossing was approached. Held, that the driver of the team was chargeable with negligence directly contributing to the collision, and that no action would lie by his administrator against the railroad company.
Error to Kalamazoo.
Henry C. Briggs, for plaintiff in error.
Hughes O'Brien & Smiley, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Adrian Leenders deceased, sued the railroad company for causing the death of his intestate by negligently running one of its trains so as to collide with his team while he was crossing its track in passing along the public highway. In the circuit court the case was taken from the jury by the instruction of the judge that they should return a verdict for the defendant. The instruction seems to have been given because in the opinion of the judge the declaration united two inconsistent causes of action, but as the plaintiff was suffered to put in all his evidence, if the case is fatally defective for any reason, it is immaterial whether the reason upon which the circuit judge acted was or was not the correct one.
The defence insisted in the court below, and insist here, that the only negligence which was shown in the case was imputable to Leenders himself, who carelessly drove against the train though he had fair warning of its approach. This claim makes it necessary to examine the evidence, and fortunately the record shows very little conflict. The collision occurred at a road crossing about two miles south of Kalamazoo. The highway is an east and west road crossing the railroad nearly at right angles. The railroad for a considerable distance south of the crossing runs through a cut which in some places is 16 feet deep, with occasional depressions in the banks through which an approaching train may be seen from the highway. About 600 feet east of the crossing is a depression of the surface of the country through which flows a brook in a general direction parallel to the line of the railroad. The highway crosses this brook by a bridge, and gradually ascends from the bridge until it reaches within three rods of the railroad, and from thence to the crossing is about on a level with the railroad track. On the south side of the highway as the railroad is approached the bank ascends abruptly from the beaten track 12 or 15 feet in height.
The time of the collision was about 7 o'clock in the morning of August 15, 1878. The train was a regular passenger train which for long a time had been accustomed to pass at about that time. Leenders was familiar with the crossing, having passed it frequently, and he was also familiar with this train and knew what its time was. He was on this occasion driving a span of horses before a double wagon and was seated upon a board laid across the bolsters. This placed him a little lower in his seat than he would be if seated in almost any vehicle in common use on the roads. He was approaching the railroad from the east, and the train was coming from the south. A witness named Ives was driving another team behind him, and stopped at the brook to water his horses. He heard the train approaching, and heard the whistle sounded three times distinctly about at the usual distance for sounding it from the crossing. He heard no bell, but the whistle apparently attracting his attention, he looked up at the team Leenders was driving and saw it approach the railroad. When at the summit of the elevation Leenders seemed to come to a halt, but immediately started up again on a trot. Ives could see the top of the engine and the heads of the horses as they approached each other, but could not see Leenders. The engine seems to have reached the crossing a moment before the horses did, and the collision seems to have been with the side of the engine throwing Leenders from his wagon causing fatal injuries. This is a brief statement of the facts. The plaintiff offered to prove that there was no warning board at the crossing, but the offer was overruled. If the fact when proved would have been important, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of it now.
It is argued on the part of the plaintiff that these facts show negligence in the railroad company...
To continue reading
Request your trial