Knottnerus v. North Park St. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 529,93 Mich. 348
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: KNOTTNERUS v. NORTH PARK ST. RY. CO.

53 N.W. 529

93 Mich. 348

KNOTTNERUS v. NORTH PARK ST. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1892

Error to circuit court, Kent county; WILLIAM E. GROVE, Judge.

Action by Jennie Knottnerus against the North Park Street Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Maher & Salsbury, for appellant.

More & Wilson, for appellee.

MCGRATH C.J.

Defendant owns and operates a street railway in the city of Grand Rapids, extending from the center of the city to a pleasure resort known as "North Park," which is also owned by defendant. Within the park was a switch-back or roller coaster, owned and operated by one Hathaway. Plaintiff had taken one of defendant's cars to North Park, and there while riding upon the switch-back, was injured by the derailing of the switch-back car. It appears that in the vicinity of the switch-back there were buildings, including a band stand, but whether the switch-back was under a roof, or under the same roof with the buildings in which the band stand was located, or how far the track or the place where the accident occurred was from the buildings, does not appear. Carpenters in defendant's employ were at work in these buildings. Plaintiff sought to show that one of the chips from the building had gotten on the rail, and caused the obstruction, and that defendant's employes had been negligent in allowing the chips to get upon the tracks. The only testimony to support the claim that the track was obstructed was that of a son of one of the parties injured who said that he "saw one [chip] that the car had run over. It was about seven or eight inches long, and lay right down by the side of the track. I saw the shape of the car wheel upon it." It was conceded and claimed that the car left the track, and there was testimony tending to show that just before the accident there had been a change made in the track at that point; hence it may have been the defective condition of the track that caused the accident. The only testimony offered to connect defendant in any way with the presence of the chips at the place of the injury was the presence of the carpenters at the band stand and the testimony of the parties who were in the car. Plaintiff says: "When I went up to the band stand, I saw the chips right along by the steps, and where the car went down from the stand. I noticed them about halfway up to the stand from where the car was thrown off. I did not see any obstruction on the track right there at the time I was hurt. I saw them when I got pretty near the band stand." Another witness says: "I did not notice the chips until I was walking up. I noticed there were chips around me. They were on one side where the car was thrown off. It seemed to be on the east side of the track. * * * I did not notice the chips at any other place than where we were." Two boys, who were on the car, say that they "saw chips on the track where we went off, and from there up to the music stand."

The mere fact that carpenters were at work at the buildings some distance away, and that...