Caswell v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co., 40.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 40.,40. |
| Citation | 263 Mich. 18,248 N.W. 641 |
| Parties | CASWELL v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Samuel G. Houghton, Judge.
Action by Jabez Caswell against the New York Central Railroad Company and another. From the judgment, named defendant appeals.
Reversed without a new trial.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Hewitt, Anneke & Brooker, of Bay City, for appellant.
Collins & Thompson, of Bay City, for appellee.
June 25, 1931, plaintiff, Hugh Campbell, and Theodore Hine, special commissioners appointed by probate court to ascertain and determine the necessity for a certain drain to be located some seventeen miles from Bay City, were to hold a meeting to view the location. Plaintiff and Campbell reported at the office of the county drain commissioner in the city, expecting to drive to the meeting in Campbell's car. The county commissioner was absent, and they met Hine, who invited them to ride with him. The commissioner had asked Hine to call Campbell and ascertain if he wanted to go with Hine, but apparently had not mentioned plaintiff.
They attended the meeting, and on the return to Bay City passed over a crossing of defendant's railroad. The crossing had a grade of 8.2 per cent., which was in excess of the statutory 3 per cent., Comp. Laws 1929, § 11402, Hine driving at a speed of twenty miles per hour or more from the railroad warning sign to the crossing, thus exceeding the statutory limit of ten miles per hour. Comp. Laws 1929, § 11405. The car jolted at the track, plaintiff was thrown from the seat, and his back injured. To injury was due to passing over the steep grade at a speed in excess of the statutory limit. Plaintiff brought this action against both Hine and defendant railroad company for negligent injuries, had judgment against the latter, and Hine was acquitted by the jury.
Both defendants were guilty of negligence per se for violation of the statutes, and the negligence of both contributed to the injury. The question is whether plaintiff was a gratuitous passenger in Hine's car, to be so found as a matter of law, counsel conceding that the negligence of the driver is imputed to such passenger. The court submitted the question as an issue of fact, and the jury found plaintiff a passenger for hire.
Plaintiff's contention in this respect is based upon the fact that the county drain commissioner paid Hine 10 cents per mile for the distance his car traveled in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Grezeszak
...disc sign should reduce speed to not more than 10 miles per hour within 100 feet of the crossing. Citing Caswell v. New York Cent. Railroad Co., 263 Mich. 18, 248 N.W. 641, it was held that a violation of such requirement constituted negligence per se. Judgment for defendant was accordingly......
-
Rehm v. Interstate Motor Freight System
...of action, which was upheld by the district court. The argument of appellant has been answered adversely in Caswell v. New York Central Railroad Company, 263 Mich. 18, 248 N.W. 641, where a jury verdict for plaintiff against a railroad company was reversed without a new trial. The plaintiff......
-
Crook v. Eckhardt
...v. Mack, 263 Mich. 10, 248 N.W. 534;Wojewoda v. City of Detroit, 264 Mich. 277, 249 N.W. 850. See, also, Caswell v. New York Central R. Co., 263 Mich. 18, 248 N.W. 641. In McGuire v. Armstrong, 268 Mich. 152, 255 N.W. 745, defendant Armstrong, a county nurse, was taking Mrs. McGuire, a coun......
-
McGuire v. Armstrong, 28.
...accident, was engaged in the performance of one of the duties for which she was paid. In addition to our own case of Caswell v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 263 Mich. 18, 248 N. W. 641, and Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304, cited by appellee, we have also examined the following guest cases, whi......