52 N.W. 62 (Mich. 1892), Cregg v. Chicago & W. M. Ry. Co.

Citation:52 N.W. 62, 91 Mich. 624
Opinion Judge:MCGRATH, J.
Party Name:CREGG v. CHICAGO & W. M. RY. CO.
Attorney:Smith, Nims, Hoyt & Erwin, for appellant. [91 Mich. 625] Jones & Clark, ( N. J. Brown, of counsel,) for appellee.
Judge Panel:LONG, J., did not sit. The other justices concurred.
Case Date:May 13, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 62

52 N.W. 62 (Mich. 1892)

91 Mich. 624




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.

[91 Mich. 625] Jones & Clark, ( N. J. Brown, of counsel,) for appellee.


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

Page 63

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 [91 Mich. 626] 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...

To continue reading