Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Collins
| Decision Date | 29 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 6257-6259.,6257-6259. |
| Citation | 65 F.2d 875 |
| Parties | GRAND TRUNK WESTERN R. CO. v. COLLINS (three cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Gilbert W. Hand, of Bay City, Mich., and William W. Macpherson, of Detroit, Mich. (Frederic T. Harward, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Harry C. Milligan, of Detroit, Mich. (Milton L. Warren, of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.
Judgments on verdicts in the three cases, consolidated below and tried as one, were entered against the appellant for death and injuries resulting from a collision between its train and an automobile. The appellee, who sued below as administrator of the estate of Matthew Leithead, deceased, and as guardian of the two Leithead children, is a citizen of Great Britain, and federal jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. The principal error assigned is the failure of the court below to direct a verdict in favor of the railroad. The facts follow:
The accident occurred about 8:30 o'clock in the evening of June 9, 1931, in the outskirts of the village of Armada, Mich. The automobile was being driven by Mrs. Leithead, with her husband on the front seat beside her and the two children in the rear seat. The car was proceeding south on North street towards defendant's right of way, which North street crosses at a right angle. The defendant's east-bound train, propelled by a gasoline motor and pulling an express car, approached from the right. Mrs. Leithead testified that upon approaching the crossing she came almost to a full stop, looked to the left and then to the right, and proceeded at an estimated speed of between five and ten miles per hour. She looked to the right a second time when she was approximately fifteen feet from the main line, and, seeing nothing, continued on. Her first knowledge of the approach of the train came when her husband screamed, and when she was on the track with a big dark object eight or ten feet from her. The crash followed, killing her husband and injuring both children. She saw no headlight, heard no bell, and heard no whistle until just before the impact. The failure of the light and the absence of warning signals were also testified to by two witnesses who were driving in the same direction approximately seventy-five feet to the rear of the Leithead car. The testimony of these witnesses, both on direct and cross examination, was positive.
A substantial array of witnesses for the defendant contradicted this evidence. Included were the three members of the train crew and nine others, some of them interested and others not interested. They all agreed that the whistle was blown when the train was 400 feet west of the crossing; that the bell was ringing, and the headlight burning. Overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the court submitted the issue of negligence to the jury, and verdict for plaintiff in all three cases resulted.
We think that the direct and positive evidence of the failure of the railroad to give the usual and required warnings made the factual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company
...v. Lambert, 6 Cir., 150 F. 555; and Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. O'Neill, 6 Cir., 186 F. 13, were cited. See also Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Collins, 6 Cir., 65 F.2d 875, 876. We think there was sufficient substantial evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant here to require sub......
-
Brinks v. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
...v. Lambert, 6 Cir., 150 F. 555; and Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. O\'Neill, 6 Cir., 186 F. 13, were cited. See also Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Collins, 6 Cir., 65 F.2d 875, 876." Patterson v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 238 F.2d 645, 647 (6th For an excellent discussion see Judge Talbot Smith'......
-
Scott v. United States
...supplied. This court has steadily adhered to the doctrine. Line v. Erie R. Co., 6 Cir., 62 F.2d 657, 659; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Collins, 6 Cir., 65 F.2d 875, 876; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Heatlie, 6 Cir., 48 F.2d 759, 761; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Galvin, 6 Cir.......
-
Nitzel v. AUSTIN COMPANY, 5598.
...Ry. & Electric Co. v. Chapman, 62 App.D.C. 140, 65 F.2d 486; United States v. Newcomer, 8 Cir., 78 F.2d 50; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. Collins, 6 Cir., 65 F.2d 875. Nitzel was injured (or so the jury could have found) when he fell three floors down an elevator shaft while attempting to a......