54 Mich. 273 | Mich. | 1884
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff in attempting to cross defendant’s railroad, and while so doing being ru n against by defendant’s engine. It appears from the plaintiff’s testimony that on the 18th day of July, 1883, she was in jured by defendant’s engine while crossing the company’s track from the slaughter-house of Hammond & Standish, near the Twentieth-street crossing. At this point defendant’s tracks run nearly east and west. There were six tracks which passed the point where plaintiff was injured, and a track leading to an ice-house 225 feet west of Twentieth street. The other six tracks are thus described: Commencing on the south the first track is called No. 1; the next are called the south and north main tracks; north of these the tracks are numbered 1, 2, and 3. The main tracks were used for all passenger trains and freight business, and for the general working tracks to get in and out of the yard. At that time defendants ran in and out over the main tracks about sixty passenger trains daily, and an equal number of passenger trains for light business, and also about eighteen switch-engines constantly running in and out. The yard was being used at that time by the Michigan Central main line; the Detroit, Lansing & Northern ; the Grand Trunk; the Flint & Fere Marquette; the Detroit & Bay City; and the Canada Southern Nailroads. At the Twentieth street crossing defendant had a fiaginan, and sign-boards on the corner, containing the words : ‘‘No thoroughfare. The public are warned against walking on these tracks.” Engines going east into the city for a train would run backward, and switch-engines running one way would go backward, and the other way forward.
“When I went west up the tracks from Hammond & Standish’s towards the ice-house I walked on the second track, and I was struck after I had turned to go across the tracks where my hu?band was working.”
On re-cross examination plaintiff testified :
Question. In the place where you were hit by the engine, could not you see down the track a quarter of a mile, clear free?'
Answer. I could not see on account of the cars which stood there.
Q. After you came out from behind the cars, could you not see a quarter of a mile, or were you struck so soon that you could not see at all?
A. I got struck right away.
*276 Q. Before you could look at all?
A. When I came from in rear of the cars I got struck.
Q. After you stepped from behind the ears where you could not see out on the other track, you never stopped to look at all, but walked right along the track?
A. Yes; 1 got struck right away.
Q. You were not between the rails at the time you were struck, but was close on the south side ?
A. I was on the side. I was struck on the right side. Before I turned to go across the tracks I looked to see whether I could see anything or hear the bell.”
A witness for plaintiff, by the name of Thomas Wiemer, was standing on the top of a car next to the ice-house; he saw an engine running down on the south main track, and he estimated the speed at which it was going at about twelve or fourteen miles an hour, and stated there was no bel'1 ringing, to his knowledge. He did not see the accident and does not know that the engine he saw was the one that struck the woman, and at the time it passed he did not hear any exclamation or see any commotion about the place; that about an hour after, he saw the plaintiff sitting in the watchman’s shanty at the corner of Twentieth street, and saw that she was badly injured ; that there was a switch-engine and cars on track No. 1, between him and the south main track, on which that engine was running
Walter Smith was working with the last witness on the refrigerator car at the ice-house, and saw the engine coming down the south main track, and in his judgment it was coming fourteen miles an hour. He did not hear the bell ring, and thinks he would have heard it had it been ringing. He saw the woman after she was hurt; did not see the accident, but heard a woman had been struck.
It is conceded that plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured. The plaintiff’s testimony also showed that, on account of a curve in the track to the west of where the accident happened, a person emerging from behind cars on track No. 1 on the south side of the main track, could see but a short distance in that direction.
The foregoing comprises substantially all the testimony relating to the manner in which the accident happened. It
It follows that the judge of .the Superior Court committed no error in directing a verdict for defendant,
And the judgment is affirmed.