Henry v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Citation | 13 N.W. 832,49 Mich. 495 |
| Parties | HENRY v. LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
The fact that the plaintiff in an action for a railway injury was hurt without his own fault or negligence does not of itself entitle him to recover, as it must further appear that the defendant is legally chargeable with the injury.
A railway company whose track is broken without any fault of its own, is under no obligation to its employes to repair it within any specified time, if it duly warns them so that they shall not be injured in consequence thereof.
A railway company is not liable to an employe for an injury caused by the negligence of a fellow-employe; as where the fireman on a freight train was hurt in consequence of the train being ditched through the engineer's neglect to obey signals which he saw and was bound, by the company's rules, to observe.
A railway company owes a duty to the public to keep its track in safe and suitable condition and run its trains with regularity and dispatch for the carriage and transportation of passengers and freight. But an employe cannot have a right of action against the company on this obligation.
Error to Lenawee.
B.F. Graves and C.A. Stacy, for plaintiff.
Millard Weaver & Weaver, Oscar G. Getzendanner, and Ashley Pond, for defendant and appellant.
That the plaintiff in this case was severely injured without fault or negligence on his part is not questioned. This alone will not entitle him to recover damages from the defendant for the injuries so received while in its employ, unless it further appears that the defendant is legally chargeable therefor. The charge made in the declaration is, that it was the duty of the company to provide a good and suitable railroad track for all its trains at all times to run over, and that it had allowed its track to become unfit, dangerous and out of repair and some of the rails to be taken up and left out thereby causing the accident. The undisputed evidence showed that on the afternoon of December 28, 1880, a section foreman of the defendant company discovered a broken rail; that he had two laborers with him at the time; that he immediately sent his men out on the line of the road to put out signals to warn approaching trains, he going in the opposite direction to intercept and warn a passenger train then expected; that this train was stopped and then safely run over the dangerous place. The foreman then sent one of his men to the westward, the direction from which the train had come, to place the necessary signals on the track to notify approaching trains of the danger. After this was done, work was commenced at once by these three men to replace the broken rail, and while they were still at work and before completing the same, a freight train, upon which the plaintiff was working as a fireman, coming from the west ran into this open place, was ditched and the plaintiff injured.
It was not claimed upon the argument, nor could it have been upon this record, that the road and track of the defendant had not been kept and maintained in good order and repair, or that there had been any negligence in not sooner discovering this broken rail, or that there was any unnecessary delay thereafter in attempting to make the necessary repairs. Nor was it claimed that there was any patent or latent defect in the broken rail. The break was attributed so the excessively cold weather and could not have been anticipated or prevented. The negligence relied upon and attempted to be proven was, that a sufficient number of men was not employed upon this section, to give proper notice to approaching trains in case of an accident and to make the repairs within such reasonable time, as at that season of the year would be required by ordinary prudence under all the existing circumstances and in view of the probable dangers of injury. It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial