McKone v. Michigan Central R. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 October 1883 |
| Citation | 51 Mich. 601,17 N.W. 74 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | McKONE v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. |
Plaintiff went to the depot to meet his wife, who was coming in on a night train, and having a call of nature, to relieve himself and be concealed from the view of passengers alighting from the train, stepped four to eight feet beyond the sidewalk onto a part of the railroad company's premises that were used by the company and its patrons as a part of the station ground, and fell down into a deep hole and was seriously injured. The regular urinals had been destroyed by fire. Held, in an action against the railroad company for damages for the injuries received, that plaintiff was not a tresspasser, and was entitled to recover.
Error to Washtenaw.
Sawyer & Knowlton, for plaintiff and appellant.
Henry Russell, for defendant.
On the evening of September 16, 1879, the plaintiff's wife accompanied by a hired girl, was returning on defendant's train from the east to her home in Chelsea, and the plaintiff went to defendant's depot to meet and escort her, as he had previously informed her he would. It was about 11 o'clock. The train was coming in as he reached the station. Being urged by a call of nature, and there being no urinal, he passed some little distance along the sidewalk away from the place for the passengers to alight, and in order to seclude himself from observation and avoid indecent exposure, he stepped from four to eight feet on defendant's grounds, and fell into a deep hole and received injury. He subsequently sued the company in this action for the damages suffered; but the circuit judge, being of opinion that his deviation from the sidewalk placed him where the risk was all his own, and where the existence of unsafe conditions was not a fault of the company of which he could take advantage, proceeded to order a verdict for the defendant.
The ruling appears to be defended on two general grounds: First that the declaration is at fault for the want of certain averments necessary to formulate a charge of the kind of grievance which the plaintiff endeavored to establish; second, that when the plaintiff left the sidewalk he became a trespasser on defendant's ground, and received his injury through his own misdoing. As to the first proposition, the accuracy of the declaration in point of strict law will not be considered. The case was not disposed of on such ground. The declaration was treated by court and counsel as a proper one for the controversy. It was fully acquiesced in, as well framed and applicable to the case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...Railroad Co., 60 Mo. 413; Blackmore v. Railway Co., 38 U. C. Q. B. 172; Railway Co. v. Best, 66 Tex. 116, 18 S. W. 224; McKone v. Railroad Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74. In regard to the measure of care due to licensees, one need not, in this case, inquire. It has been held by some courts ......
-
Berry v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... Toronto, etc., Co. , 38 U.C.Q.B ... 172; Railroad v. Best , 66 Tex. 116; McKone v ... Railroad , 51 Mich. 601 ... In ... regard to the measure of care due ... ...
-
Banderob v. Wis. Cent. Ry. Co.
...Rep. 917, and cases cited in opinion; Klugherz v. Railway Co., 90 Minn. 17, 95 N. W. 586, 101 Am. St. Rep. 384;McKone v. Railway Co., 51 Mich. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596; 3 Thompson's Commentaries on Negligence, §§ 2678 to 2685. Aside from the degree of care, the extent of the duty w......
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Battle