Baughman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., Docket No. 113816
| Decision Date | 25 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 113816 |
| Citation | 460 N.W.2d 895,185 Mich.App. 78 |
| Parties | Michael J. BAUGHMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Santa Ramirez, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee. v. Jose V. RAMIREZ, Third-Party Defendant. 185 Mich.App. 78, 460 N.W.2d 895 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[185 MICHAPP 79] Best, Schmucker, Heyns & Klaeren, P.C. by Michael J. Klaeren and Chad C. Schmucker, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Driggers, Schultz, Herbst & Paterson by Gene S. Davis and Thomas A. Malone, Troy, for defendant.
Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and WAHLS and SAWYER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals from evidentiary rulings by the circuit court excluding the contents of files compiled by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
Plaintiff's decedent was killed when the car in which she was a passenger was struck by a train coming through a railway crossing maintained and controlled by defendant, Consolidated Rail Corporation. Plaintiff sued defendant for negligence, basing his claims upon the company's failure to maintain adequate warning devices or gates at the crossing to prevent accidents. In support of these claims, plaintiff attempted to offer into evidence Department of Transportation files regarding the crossing in order to establish a need for gates. Defendant moved to exclude the files from evidence, which the trial court granted, stating:
Well my impression is that the law and apparently administrative law has pretty much taken over this area with respect to what is reasonable or unreasonable or should be done with respect to railroad crossings. And if the government and the railroad complies with those recommendations or the orders with respect to that that there is very little room for common law negligence. So unless there is something else that comes out during the course of the trial about those reports and so on those would not be admitted.
[185 MICHAPP 80] Prior to trial, plaintiff stipulated to an order of dismissal on the ground that, given the court's evidentiary rulings, plaintiff had no viable case against defendant Conrail. The court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the circuit court erred in ruling that the contents of the files were not admissible. We disagree.
Plaintiff attempted to present the contents of the files to prove that defendants' railroad crossing required warning signals and gates and that defendant was negligent in failing to install these devices. M.C.L. Sec. 257.668(2); M.S.A. Sec. 9.2368(2) provides in relevant part:
The erection of or failure to erect, replace, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paddock v. Tuscola & Saginaw Bay Ry. Co., Inc., Docket No. 192854
...language of the statute, be held liable for the failure to erect additional warning devices or signals. Baughman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 185 Mich.App. 78, 80, 460 N.W.2d 895 (1990). Plaintiff also argues that CSX may be liable because it had a common-law duty to petition the proper gove......
-
Taylor v. Lenawee County Bd. of Road Com'rs
...See, generally, Turner v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 198 Mich.App. 254, 256-257, 497 N.W.2d 571 (1993); Baughman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 185 Mich.App. 78, 80-81, 460 N.W.2d 895 (1990), citing Edington v. Grand Trunk W.R. Co., 165 Mich.App. 163, 165-169, 418 N.W.2d 415 (1987); accord Melv......
-
Turner v. CSX Transp., Inc., Docket Nos. 138138
...language of the statute, be held liable for the failure to erect additional warning devices or signals. Baughman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 185 Mich.App. 78, 80, 460 N.W.2d 895 (1990). Plaintiff also argues that CSX may be liable because it had a common-law duty to petition the proper gove......