Stanley v. Chicago & W.M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1894
• Citation: Stanley v. Chicago & W.M. Ry. Co., 59 N.W. 393, 101 Mich. 202 (Mich. 1894)
• Parties: STANLEY v. CHICAGO & W. M. RY. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

59 N.W. 393

101 Mich. 202

STANLEY v. CHICAGO & W. M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 16, 1894

Error to circuit court, Newaygo county; John H. Palmer, Judge.

Action by David Stanley against the Chicago & West Michigan Railway Company for damages for personal injuries.Judgment for defendant.Plaintiff brings error.Affirmed.

William D. Fuller and A. F. Tibbitts, for appellant.

Smiley, Smith & Stevens, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Plaintiff was a brakeman in defendant's employ.The train crew consisted of the conductor, engineer, fireman, and two brakemen.The train was composed of about 25 freight cars.An empty flat car was next the tender, the remainder being box cars.It was necessary to leave two box cars at a station known as "Linderman Siding."The conductor communicated this information to plaintiff.The train had stopped about four or five car lengths from the switch.Plaintiff started to go between the cars to uncouple them.He testified that the conductor said: "No, no; get up on that flat car, and do not pull the pin until the train is running.We are going to make a flying switch."The way such switches are made is as follows: The train is started slowly towards the switch, slack is then given, the pin is pulled while the train is in motion, the engine then starts up, and goes past the switch, one brakeman then turns the switch, letting the disconnected cars pass upon the siding.To accomplish this, plaintiff got upon the rear of the flat car, got on his knees, supporting himself on one hand, there being no brake at that end, pulled the pin, and just as he was reaching over to lay it down on the bumper of the box car, the engine started ahead, throwing him to the ground and his leg was injured so that amputation became necessary He testified that he gave no signal to the engineer to go ahead.Before the train started for the switch the conductor had climbed upon the first box car, and taken his station at the rear, to apply the brake, in which position he was out of sight of the plaintiff.Neither could he be seen by the engineer, on account of the tender.Plaintiff had had no experience in braking upon regular freight trains, but had some time previously had a little experience on a logging railroad hauling logs onto the main track, and sometimes did switching onto the main track; and for about five months in 1889he was brakeman on a logging railroad, 12 or 13 miles long, in the Upper Peninsula.In order to obtain the position on the defendant's road he falsely stated to its agent who employed him that he had done braking on the Minneapolis road from Minneapolis...