Wormsdorf v. Detroit City Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1889 |
| Citation | 75 Mich. 472,42 N.W. 1000 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | WORMSDORF v. DETROIT CITY RY. CO. |
Error to circuit court, Wayne county; REILLY, Judge.
Henry Orhns, (S.E. Engle, of counsel,) for appellee.
This action was brought to recover damages arising from an injury to plaintiff while riding upon a street-car. The negligence of the defendant was alleged to have consisted in neglecting to furnish proper and safe brakes and appliances for slacking the speed of cars in going a down grade, or for stopping the car, and in wrongfully and negligently furnishing and providing a braking apparatus with a weak, cracked, and defective connecting rod, which was utterly inadequate unsafe, and positively dangerous to life and limb; that the rod was partly cracked and broken, and its situation and location under the car was open and exposed to view, and the defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, could and would have known of the unsafe condition of said road and braking apparatus, and did know thereof; and that in going over a bridge above the tracks of the Michigan Central Railroad, and descending the grade thereon westward, the said connecting rod broke asunder, rendering the front brake useless, so that the driver was powerless to check the speed of the car. In neglecting to provide the car with a conductor to apply the rear brake, and conduct and assist in the care of the passengers. In providing and furnishing as one of the teams a dangerous and fractious horse, which had for a long time before then been known to defendant to be dangerous, and at times unmanageable; and that the horses became frightened and unmanageable, and the cars rushed upon their heels, and they ran away. In the neglect of the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger, which was going east, to stop and permit her to alight, but wrongfully and negligently accelerated the was injured as stated in the declaration.
The declaration contains but one count, and the accident and resulting injury are alleged as having been caused by the several concurring negligent acts of and omissions of defendant. Had the connecting rod not broken, although the horse was fractious, and although there was no conductor, and although the driver of the east-bound car did accelerate his speed, and had not stopped and suffered the plaintiff to alight, the injury would not have been received by plaintiff. And so, if either duty upon the violation of which negligence is predicated had been performed, the accident would not have happened. It was necessary to the plaintiff's case under the pleadings to establish by proof each element of negligence alleged.
The testimony introduced by the plaintiff tended to show that Mr Barry was superintendent of the road, and had general charge of the cars, horses, and men used and employed upon defendant's road, or at least of that portion of it upon which the accident happened. The defendant was in duty bound to furnish and provide suitable cars with proper and safe appliances for checking the speed of the cars on a descending grade, and for stopping them, as necessity or convenience required, and to keep the same in good repair, and to provide safe horses for the transportation of passengers, and careful and prudent drivers. The defendant, however, is not liable as an insurer of the safety of its passengers, and is only liable for any injury which may happen through its own negligence or default, or the negligence or default of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial