Rosencranz v. Mich. Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 6.,6. |
| Citation | 221 N.W. 273,244 Mich. 137 |
| Parties | ROSENCRANZ v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Saginaw County; Clarence M. Browne, Judge.
Action by Frank Rosencranz against the Michigan Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded, with direction.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Humphrey, Grant & Henry, of Saginaw, for appellant.
R. L. Crane, of Saginaw, for appellee.
Four paralled tracks of defendant railroad company cross a private roadway leading from a public highway to a mine of the Robert Gage Coal Company in Saginaw county. This roadway has been used many years by miners in going to and from the mine. May 13, 1925, at about 8 o'clock in the forenoon, plaintiff, a miner, had been to the mine and found that water prevented him from working that day, and, while using the private roadway to go home, his automobile was struck at the railroad crossing by a locomotive backing over the sough track. When plaintiff was near the north track he stopped his automobile, listened, and made observation, and, seeing and hearing no locmotive, started across the north and two middle tracks, and, when near the south track, discovered a locomotive within 35 or 40 feet. Plaintiff was then in a place of danger, could not stop and back up in time to get out of the way, and attempted to make the crossing, and was struck and injured.
The question of moment is whether he exercised reasonable care before he got into the place of danger. We may, for the purpose of decision, assume negligence on the part of the defendant.
The locomotive was upon the south track, and upon the next track north were two gondola cars loaded with coal, standing about 6 feet from the roadway and extending about 75 feet along the track. Defendant offered no evidence, but relied upon the claim of contributory negligence of plaintiff. Plaintiff had verdict and judgment, and defendant reviews by writ of error, presenting the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The defendant concedes, as it must, that the testimony in the case should be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff's claim of exercise of reasonable care. So viewed, was the question one for the jury, or was it for the court to merely apply the law?
When plaintiff stopped, looked, and listened before entering upon the crossing, he had a view sufficient to justify him in proceeding, but, when he found that the gondola cars shut off his view of the south track, he was required to govern his going from then on with such fact in mind and regulate his movements so as to keep within the zone of known safety until he could reasonably determine it was safe to proceed. Plaintiff's testimony shows he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...N.W.2d 271. Defendant and appellant relied in argument and brief upon the cases thus distinguished above plus Rosencranz v. Michigan Central R. Co., 244 Mich. 137, 221 N.W. 273. This latter case is distinguished from the instant one by the fact that the crossing was wholly unprotected and p......
-
Finfera v. Thomas, 8537.
...Mich. 538, 227 N. W. 786; Richman v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 254 Mich. 607, 236 N.W. 878; Rosencranz v. Michigan Central Railroad Co., 244 Mich. 137, 221 N.W. 273; Steele v. Hamilton, 218 Mich. 522, 188 N.W. 345. See, also, Hartwick v. Lawson, 290 Mich. 91, 287 N.W. 391; A......
-
Lockett v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.
...look for oncoming trains at a railroad crossing. Davis v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 241 Mich. 166, 216 N. W. 424;Rosencranz v. Michigan Central R. Co., 244 Mich. 137, 221 N. W. 273;Laurain v. Detroit, T. & I. R. Co., 249 Mich. 630, 229 N. W. 423;Richman v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 254 Mich.......
-
Motyka v. Detroit, s. 3-5.
...166, 216 N. W. 424;De Jager v. Andringa, 241 Mich. 474, 217 N. W. 332 (an opinion written by Justice Clark); Rosencranz v. Michigan Central R. Co., 244 Mich. 137, 221 N. W. 273;Laurain v. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton R. Co., 249 Mich. 630, 229 N. W. 423, but neglects to state a standard of car......