McWilliams v. Detroit Cent. Mills Co.

Decision Date29 January 1875
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesPatrick H. McWilliams v. The Detroit Central Mills Company

Heard January 27, 1875

Error to Superior Court of Detroit.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

Moore & Griffin and Hoyt Post, for plaintiff in error.

Walker & Kent, for defendant in error.

Campbell J. Cooley, J., and Graves, Ch. J., concurred. Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.

OPINION

Campbell, J.:

Plaintiff sued as administrator of Thomas Gumbleton, to recover damages for the death of Gumbleton, who was killed by cars backed upon defendant's premises on a track running therefrom to the central railroad lands opposite. The track in question crosses Woodbridge street, Detroit, at right angles, to defendant's mill on the north side of the street, crossing the sidewalk and running back close to a line fence, which leaves no room for anyone to pass or stand between it and the cars when backing up. Gumbleton was going to his work along Woodbridge street, and, as nearly as it can be determined, was struck by the cars, which were suddenly backed up after standing still, and was crushed against the fence. The whole transaction seems to have occurred when it was somewhat dark, early on a winter morning, and no one noticed it, or saw the bodies of Gumbleton and a companion killed at the same time, until more than an hour after, when the cars were moved.

The court below directed a verdict for the defendant, without assigning reasons, and the grounds alleged to support the ruling are: first, that there was contributory negligence; and, second, that the cars were run by the Michigan Central railroad and not by the defendant, who is claimed not to have been responsible for the neglect of the railroad.

We have found no evidence of negligence in Gumbleton. The testimony indicates that he was crossing while the cars were standing still, and that they were suddenly started by the locomotive pushing against them to back them up. A passenger along the sidewalk of a public street has a right to expect some warning before any sudden movement of this kind, and there should be very plain proof of negligence to bind him under such circumstances. The track was not a part of the business track of the Central railroad, and no regular trains ran there. Any use of this special track must have been subordinated to the rights of the general public. It does not stand on the same footing with an ordinary track. If there was any testimony from which a jury could infer negligence in Gumbleton,--which we have not discovered,--it was not such as to shut the case from the jury.

The railway track was built under a license given by the city of Detroit,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • In re Certified Question from 14TH Dist.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 25, 2007
    ...(a passerby fell into a ditch); Darmstaetter v. Moynahan, 27 Mich. 188 (1873) (a passerby ran into a wall of ice); McWilliams v. Detroit Central Mills Co., 31 Mich. 274 (1875) (a passerby was run over by a railroad car); Rogers v. Parker, 159 Mich. 278, 123 N.W. 1109 (1909) (a fire spread t......
  • Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 29, 1909
    ...Cameron v. Gt. N. Ry. Co., 8 N.D. 124; 77 N.W. 1016; Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U.S. 461; Cooley on Torts (3rd Ed.) 1428, et seq; McWilliams v. Co., 31 Mich. 274; Tiepel v. Hilsendegen, 44 Mich. 462, 7 N.W. 82; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Morgan, 22 P. 995; Shaber v. St. Paul, Minn. & M. Ry. ......
  • Kourik v. English
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 5, 1937
    ...... during the month of November, 1932, and was recovered near. Mills Springs, Missouri, late in December, 1932. On December. 31, 1932, the men ... v. Key (Ala.), 140 So. 233; McWilliams v. Detroit. Central Mills Co., 31 Mich. 274.] Both of these cases. make ......
  • McCraine v. T. L. James & Co., 4373
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • May 2, 1957
    ...such presumption is sufficient under the rule to permit the plaintiff to recover upon showing negligence in the defendant. McWilliams v. Mills Company, 31 Mich. 274; Mynning v. (Detroit L. & N.) Railroad Company, 59 Mich. 257, 26 N.W. 514; Id., 64 Mich. (93) 102, 31 N.W. 147, 8 Am.St.Rep. 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT