Piskorowski v. Detroit, G.H. & M.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 October 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 241,121 Mich. 498
• Parties: PISKOROWSKI v. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

80 N.W. 241

121 Mich. 498

PISKOROWSKI v. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 3, 1899

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Willard M. Lillibridge Judge.

Action by Anthony Piskorowski against the Detroit, Grand Haven &amp Milwaukee Railway Company. There was judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Wm. E Fenwick and A. B. Hall, for appellant.

L. C. Stanley (E. W. Meddaugh and Geer & Williams, of counsel), for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

On the 15th day of September, 1897, between 5:30 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, the plaintiff, a laboring man, about 42 years of age, and quite deaf, was returning from his work to his home. At Superior street, in the city of Detroit, the plaintiff turned upon the track of the defendant company, upon which he intended to walk to Alexandrine avenue, one block south, where he had a message to deliver to a man who lived close to the track. Between Alexandrine and Superior street there are three tracks,--two main tracks and a side track. The plaintiff knew that trains going north ran on the easterly main track, and trains going south ran on the westerly main track. As he was going south, he therefore walked on the easterly track, so that in case he was in danger of being struck by a train he could see it approaching. He walked along the ties a few inches from the west rail of the easterly main track. When the plaintiff turned upon the track of the defendant company, he looked in both directions, and saw nothing approaching, but he did not turn again until he came to Alexandrine avenue. When about 30 steps from Alexandrine avenue, plaintiff looked around for a watchman, and saw none: but when he reached the sidewalk he saw the flagman in the door of the flaghouse, cleaning lamps. Plaintiff had previous knowledge that a flagman was stationed at this crossing. He turned abruptly on the sidewalk to cross the easterly main track, along the ties of which he had been walking. As he stepped across the rail he was struck by a hand car of defendant company coming from behind, and was severely injured, his leg being crushed and rendered useless. The hand car was propelled by four men, with a foreman in charge of a hand brake. When the plaintiff was about 10 feet from the Alexandrine crossing, and the hand car was about 30 feet in the rear of plaintiff, the men on the hand car shouted to him a warning which he did not hear, and to which he paid no attention. When between 12 and 15 feet away from the plaintiff they again shouted, and plaintiff again failed to pay any attention, and the men on the hand car made no effort to slow up. The men on the hand car shouted a third time just before they struck the plaintiff. The testimony of one of the men still in the employ of defendant company was that the car was going very slow, and could be stopped within a few feet. When the plaintiff was struck he was upon the sidewalk of Alexandrine avenue, and had turned upon the sidewalk to cross the track. After plaintiff had submitted his case, upon motion of defendant's attorney the learned trial judge below directed a verdict for the defendant, to...