Cornell v. Detroit E. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1890 |
| Citation | 46 N.W. 791,82 Mich. 495 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | CORNELL v. DETROIT E. RY. CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE S. HOSMER, Judge.
Russel & Campbell, for appellant.
James H. Pound, for appellee.
The defendant owns and operates an electric railway upon Dix avenue, in the city of Detroit, under authority granted by the city. At the time of the accident complained of, the street was not paved; the track was laid in the center, and was several inches higher than the road-way upon either side thereby rendering it somewhat difficult for persons to drive from one side to the other, except at the street crossing. The situation of Dix avenue, and of the streets crossing it near where the accident occurred, is as follows:
(Image Omitted)
The land in the vicinity was open common, except three houses situated at the corner of Dix and Military avenues. Plaintiff had a horse and buggy, and was driving on the right-hand side of the street. His statement is substantially as follows: He had crossed Campbell avenue, and was within about 25 feet of Cavalry avenue, when he saw the cars coming around the bend about 350 feet distant. He stopped his horse, put up his hand as a signal to stop the train, jumped out of his buggy, and took his horse by the head. He judged that the cars were about half-way down when he caught his horse by the head, and that they were slowing down. The horse began to exhibit signs of fear, and he led him across the sidewalk into the open field. The horse dragged plaintiff around the open field, and finally turned, and dragged him across the street onto the track, where plaintiff fell and was injured and the horse ran away. When the horse began to run with the plaintiff, the car, according to his own testimony, was about 150 feet distant, and slowing down, and stopped before reaching the point in the street where plaintiff stopped his horse. The testimony on the part of the defense was that the person in charge of the car saw plaintiff when about 400 feet distant; that he saw signs that the horse was frightened; that he rung the gong when nearing the bend, which statement is not disputed; that he ran slowly for about 250 feet, when he brought the car to a stop; that the horse did not cross the track, but that he came back over the sidewalk into the street, then turned around, and ran across the sidewalk again into the open lot; that plaintiff stumbled on the sidewalk as the horse was going over it the second time; and that all usual and necessary precautions were taken by the defendant's servants. The negligence alleged is that defendant did not observe sufficient caution in coming around the bend to alarm plaintiff, so as to enable him to avoid the trouble complained of; but that, without notice, and at a great rate of speed, it caused its cars to come suddenly around the bend as plaintiff was approaching. There is no evidence that any other notice than the noise produced by the running of the cars and...
To continue reading
Request your trial