63 Mich. 557 | Mich. | 1886
The deceased in this case, on the seventh day of December, 1881, was, and for a long time previous thereto had been, in the employ of the defendant at the city of Grand Rapids as foreman in one of the paint-shops, and lived with his family about a mile south of defendant’s shops
On the afternoon of the seventh of December, aforesaid, he was returning to his home after the labors of the day, and, while walking upon the track, one of the passenger trains of the defendant, going in the same direction, apparently unobserved by Mr. Brandel, came upon him, killing him instantly.
This suit is brought by his administratrix, in the interest of his wife and children, to recover for the. loss sustained by them in his death, which it is alleged occurred through the negligence and recklessness of the servants of the defendant in charge of and conducting the train.
The case was tried in the superior court of Grand Rapids, and the verdict of the jury was directed by the court for the ■defendant.
On the trial of the cause counsel for the plaintiff, in opening his case to the jury, stated to them that the plaintiff would show in evidence the following facts, upon which they •should rely for recovery, viz.:
That the deceased, at the time of his death, was 39 years •old, was a native of Holland, and had lived in this country 14 years; that he was an educated, cultured,, skillful man and workman; that for several years previous to his death he had been employed in railroad shops, and at the time of his death was in the employ of the Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company as foreman, and had entire charge of the painting ■department at the car-Shops of the company; that he was a sober and industrious man; that the car-shops were located at the southern boundary of the city, and that the home of the deceased was about a mile south of the shops; that he had for months previous to his death been .in the habit of going upon the railroad track in returning to his home after
After this statement of facts to the jury of what the plaintiff expected to prove upon the trial, defendant’s counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence by the plaintiff tending to show those facts, on the ground that they failed to state a-cause of action against the defendant. After argument had upon the objection, the court sustained the same, and plaintiff’s counsel excepted. The parties here rested the case,, and the court directed the verdict as hereinbefore stated.
I think the court erred in this ruling. The holding was that Brandel was guilty of such contributory negligence as to prevent a recovery.
The deceased, under the statement made, was rightfully on the defendant’s track. He was there by permission from the defendant. It is true it was his duty to keep out of the way of passing trains.
But if he had stood still, and faced the train as it approached, him, it would furnish no excuse to the defendant for running its engine over him and killing him, if the engineer saw he did not intend to get off of the track, and there was time enough to stop the train before reaching him. Contributory-negligence cannot be relied upon in such a cáse. Neither can it in any case where the action of the defendant is wanton, willful, or reckless in the premises, and injury ensues as the-result. 2 Thomp. Neg. 1160; Cooley, Torts, 674; Beach, Cont. Neg. 29; Hartfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. 615; Vandegrift v. Rediker, 22 N. J. Law, 185; Lafayette, etc., R. R. Co. v. Adams, 26 Ind. 76; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. McClure, Id. 370; Mulherrin v. Delaware, etc., R. R. Co., 81 Penn. St. 366; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271; Daley
Under the statement it very clearly appears that the defendant’s servants gave all the warnings they could without stopping the train, and they saw that Braudel gave no heed to them. They then had time to stop their train if necessary to prevent accident, and in all such cases, where a person is discovered upon the track, and it is seen that he fails to recognize the peril of his situation, and the warnings given thereof, it is the duty of the, engineer, and humanity requires, that he should slow down his train; and, if necessary to preserve life or limb, come to a full stop. 2 Thomp. Neg. 1157, and cases cited; Beach, Cont. Neg. 29, and cases cited; Green v. Erie Ry. Co., 11 Hun, 333; Radley v. London & N. W. Ry. Co., 1 App. Cas. 754; Shear. & R. Neg. § 36; Add. Torts, 21.
That is what the engineer should have done in this case, and his failure so to do must be held at least reckless.
After a careful examination of the record in this case I can come to no other conclusion. I think the judgment directed by the judge of the superior court should be set aside, and a new trial granted.