Day v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Bishop v. New York Central R. Co.

    83 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 1957)   Cited 9 times

    This view has obtained in case of a pedestrian ( Amedeo v. Grand Rapids Indiana R. Co., 215 Mich. 37), as in other cases. "See Day v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 252 Mich. 589; Tobias v. Michigan Central R. Co., 103 Mich. 330; Hudson v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 227 Mich. 1 (23 NCCA 682); Richmond v. Chicago Western Michigan R. Co., 87 Mich. 374; Crawford v. Michigan Central R. Co., 207 Mich. 159; note 53 ALR 973; note 23 NCCA 682; note 16 NCCA 110, 112." Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven Milwaukee R. Co., 253 Mich. 647, 652, affirmed on rehearing, 256 Mich. 417.

  2. Ludwig v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company

    229 F. Supp. 61 (E.D. Mich. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    The case of Day v. Pere Marquette R.R. Co., 252 Mich. 589, 233 N.W. 425, involved the precise question of plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court in its opinion indicated that a flagman's action in that he warned the public of a freight train which had just passed, and then walked off to the side of the road to talk to another person, and consequently failed to warn the public of the oncoming passenger train which hit plaintiff, presented questions of fact for the jury.

  3. Rogers v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.

    286 N.W. 660 (Mich. 1939)   Cited 7 times

    On this review the testimony must be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Day v. Railway Co., 252 Mich. 589. So considered we make a brief statement of the facts bearing upon plaintiff's contributory negligence. At the Elm street crossing defendant has four tracks extending in an easterly and westerly direction intersecting the street substantially at right angles.

  4. Lockett v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.

    272 Mich. 219 (Mich. 1935)   Cited 28 times
    In Lockett the accident occurred at noon on a bright, sunny day and plaintiff could have seen the train approaching seasonably if she had made proper observation.

    However, an accident at a so-called "protected crossing" does not necessarily in all cases present a question of fact for the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. Day v. Railroad Co., 252 Mich. 589; Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. Windsor, supra; Crowley v. Railroad Co., 204 Iowa, 1385 ( 213 N.W. 403, 53 A.L.R. 964). But whether contributory negligence is a question of law for the court or one of fact for the jury depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. In McPeake v. Railway Co., supra, where we held that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was one for the jury, the accident occurred on a dark night, at an unobstructed crossing.

  5. Day v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.

    249 N.W. 869 (Mich. 1933)   Cited 1 times

    The case came to trial in the circuit court February 25, 1930, and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of defendant. Upon review in this court there was reversal and a new trial granted in December, 1930. Day v. Railway Co., 252 Mich. 589. Mr. Day died intestate, leaving an estate consisting of personal property. December 28, 1928, the administratrix filed an inventory and appraisal of the estate and her final account and asked for distribution and her discharge, and the same day, the heirs at law waiving notice, the account was allowed, and the estate assigned by the probate court. February 25, 1930, the probate court found the estate administered, discharged the administratrix, and the proceedings were enrolled on April 19, 1930.

  6. Motyka v. Detroit, G. H. M. Ry. Co

    235 N.W. 825 (Mich. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    This view has obtained in case of a pedestrian ( Amedeo v. Railway Co., 215 Mich. 371), as in other cases. See Day v. Railway Co., 252 Mich. 589; Tobias v. Railway Co., 103 Mich. 330; Hudson v. Railway Co., 227 Mich. 1 (23 N.C.C.A. 682); Richmond v. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374; Crawford v. Railway Co., 207 Mich. 159; note 53 A.L.R. 973; note 23 N.C.C.A. 682; note 16 N.C.C.A. 110, 112. Under the circumstances of the case, it ought not to be held as a matter of law that the boys were negligent in not looking more carefully before attempting to cross.