Richard v. Detroit, R., R. & L.O. Ry.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1902 |
| Citation | 89 N.W. 52,129 Mich. 458 |
| Parties | RICHARD v. DETROIT, R., R. & L. O. RY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Oakland county; George W. Smith, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth Richard against the Detroit, Rochester, Romeo & Lake Orion Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Graves & Hatch, for appellant.
Baldwin Jacokes & Moore, for appellee.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment against the Detroit Rochester, Romeo & Lake Orion Railway for personal injuries sustained by her by reason, as she claims, of her being thrown from one of the defendant's cars because of the negligent starting of the same when she was alighting therefrom at the village of Royal Oak. The annexed plat will aid in understanding the situation.
The Detroit & Pontiac Railway owns and operates an electric railway running from Detroit through Royal Oak and other intermediate places to Pontiac. The Detroit, Rochester, Romeo & Lake Orion Railway, the defendant, owns and operates an electric railway connecting with the Detroit & Pontiac Railway at Royal Oak, and running therefrom north and east to Rochester, Oxford, Orion, and branching to Romeo, in Macomb county. A working arrangement was entered into between the two companies. This arrangement was in writing. The pertinent portions read as follows: * * *' September 21, 1900, the plaintiff got upon one of the cars of the defendant in Detroit, and, after leaving the city limits, she paid her fare to Royal Oak. It is her claim that, just before reaching the point marked 'A' on the plat, the conductor came through the car and called, 'Royal Oak;' that soon thereafter the car stopped, and, after waiting for a number of passengers to get on, she attempted to alight, and while doing so the car started, as the result of which she was injured. It was also her claim that passengers were in the habit of alighting at this point. The conductor denied that he called, 'Royal Oak,' and that passengers were in the habit of getting on and off at this point, and it is the claim of defendant it was not a proper place for passengers to alight. The record shows that south-bound cars did not stop at the station, but stopped at the point marked 'B' upon the plat.
(Image Omitted)
Special findings of fact were submitted to the jury, which, with the answers, were as follows: (1) Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence in attempting to alight at the place and in the manner which she did? Which said question was answered by the jury in the negative. (2) Was the conductor negligent in signaling the car ahead in the manner in which he testified he did? Which said question was answered by the jury in the affirmative. (3) Was the switch stop a point where passengers were accustomed to alight from defendant's cars? Which said question was answered by the jury in the affirmative. (4) Did the conductor call out, 'Royal Oak,' before making the switch stop? Which said question was answered by the jury in the affirmative. (5) Was the plaintiff thrown to the ground and injured by the starting of the car? Which said question was answered by the jury in the affirmative.
Counsel for defendant say, while they think the court erred on various questions upon the trial, they do not desire the case reversed unless the court erred in relation to two fundamental questions: First, was there negligence on the part of the conductor or...
To continue reading
Request your trial