Sturgis v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1888
• Citation: 40 N.W. 914,72 Mich. 619
• Parties: STURGIS v. DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

40 N.W. 914

72 Mich. 619

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

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 28, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Shiawassee county; WILLIAM NEWTON, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Sturgis against the Detroit, Grand Haven &amp Milwaukee Railway Company to recover for personal injuries received on defendant's premises by falling into a cattle-guard. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

CAMPBELL J.

Plaintiff fell into a cattle-guard at Durand, where defendant's railway crosses from the station grounds into the adjoining highway leading to the village, and was injured. She sued defendant for negligence, alleged to have consisted in leaving the pit open at the place in question, claiming that the railroad track was used as a foot-path, and that defendant was bound to keep it in safe traveling order. Plaintiff had arrived with her husband on a train from Gaines to Durand, arriving after dark in the evening of December 1 1885. She was not acquainted with the premises. Instead of going into the depot, which fronted on a highway on the other side from where she stepped from the cars upon the rear platform, and without making inquiry of any one, they went along the platform to where it ended with a step down upon the track in the station-yard, and then took the track, and walked along it in the direction taken by the train which they had left. There were no lights along the track after it passed the depot. The platform was about 275 feet long, and from the end of the platform to the cattle-guard was 445 feet further. The cattle-guard had no facilities for crossing, and does not appear to have been peculiar in its construction. There was a safe way from the front of the depot by the regular highway to the village which, by reason of an angle, made the way thither rather longer than the straight line along the track to the cattle-guard on the highway.

The way taken by plaintiff and her husband was all within the private grounds of the railway used for station purposes, and there were no walks or other means provided for pedestrians through this yard, and it was not lighted. The railway track was leveled and graded as usual in such places, and it was on this track, between the rails, and where all the trains ran that plaintiff set out from the depot, and walked till she was hurt. The declaration does not disclose the fact that the plaintiff walked along the track, but...