Cregg v. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1892
• Parties: CREGG v. CHICAGO & W. M. RY. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

52 N.W. 62

91 Mich. 624

CREGG v. CHICAGO & W. M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 13, 1892

Error to circuit court, Muskegon county; ALBERT DICKERMAN, Judge.

Action by William Cregg against the Chicago & West Michigan Railway Company to recover for personal injuries. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Smith, Nims, Hoyt & Erwin, for appellant.

Jones & Clark, (N. J. Brown, of counsel,) for appellee.

MCGRATH J.

Plaintiff a brakeman upon a freight train in defendant's employ was injured in February, 1888, while attempting to couple to a car upon a siding at a way station. The side track was from 400 to 600 feet long, and ran north, parallel with the main track. On the east side of the spur were perpendicular banks and coal docks, just far enough from the tracks to allow the cars to pass. The distance between the main track and the siding at the point of the injury was about seven feet. There had been considerable snow during the winter, and the snow-plows had thrown it from the main track into this space, and, inasmuch as it could not be thrown to the east, it was shoveled into this space from the siding, forming a ridge between the main and side tracks from two and a half to four feet high. This ridge of snow had packed and had become hard, and the angle from the west track of the siding to the top of the ridge was from 40 to 45 deg. No space had been cleared at the point of the injury, but the ascent began at the rail. For about one third of the distance north of the switch the snow between the main and side tracks had been cleared away to a level with the tracks. Plaintiff had cut off the engine and two cars, rode them to the switch, switched the engine and two cars upon the side track, and preceded the moving section of the train, to make the coupling to a car that stood within the space that had been cleared of the snow. The last car upon the moving section of the train was loaded with logs, which projected over the rear of the car, rendering the act of coupling difficult and dangerous. The drawbar upon this car was also defective. Plaintiff describes it as follows: "I think it was a skeleton drawbar,-what they call a skeleton drawbar. I think it was cast iron or wrought iron. I don't know which it was; and it was hollow. The spring that was in back to hold it out to its place, or the plug, it seems, had worked out of there, or broke or taken out, so that nothing held it from pushing clear in at the side, except the pin for the coupling there, and that had pushed into the wood, so that it wore a hole in there as big as the pin was. It was worn bad. The bolts that went up through it to hold it were worn so it dropped down four inches lower than the drawbars on the other cars." This defect increased the danger and difficulty of making the coupling. The first attempt to couple failed, as did the second. In the attempts at coupling, the car which they were seeking to attach was driven north upon the side track, and opposite the snow bank. By reason of the projecting...