§

Edington v. Grand Trunk W R Co.

165 Mich. App. 163 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)
Edington v. Grand Trunk W R Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Conmy v. Amtrak

    407 F. Supp. 2d 868 (W.D. Mich. 2005)

    The Michigan courts interpreting this statute, however, have concluded that "public authority" means any public authority. Edington v. Grand Trunk W.R.R. Co., 165 Mich. App. 163, 168, 418 N.W.2d 415, 417 (1987). In Edington, a wrongful death action arising out of an automobile-train collision that occurred at a railroad crossing located on a county road under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the county, plaintiffs sued the county road commission alleging that it was negligent in failing to "install . . . devices adequate to warn motorists of an approaching train."

  2. Taylor v. Lenawee County Board of County Road Commissioners

    216 Mich. App. 435 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 12 times

    The state transportation department with respect to highways under its jurisdiction, the county road commissions, and local authorities with reference to highways under their jurisdiction, may designate certain grade crossings of railways by highways as yield crossings, and erect signs at the crossings notifying drivers of vehicles upon the highway to yield. . . . The erection of or failure to erect, replace, or maintain a stop or yield sign or other railroad warning device, unless such devices or signs were ordered by public authority, shall not be a basis for an action of negligence against the state transportation department, county road commissions, the railroads, or local authorities. See, generally, Turner v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 198 Mich. App. 254, 256-257; 497 N.W.2d 571 (1993); Baughman v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 185 Mich. App. 78, 80-81; 460 N.W.2d 895 (1990), citing Edington v. Grand Trunk W R Co., 165 Mich. App. 163, 165-169; 418 N.W.2d 415 (1987); accord Melville v. St. Joseph Bd. of Co. Rd Comm'rs, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 22, 1992 (Docket No. 130251). In light of Turner, supra, and Melville, supra, we agree with defendant board of county road commissioners that it was immune from tort liability for the death of plaintiffs' decedents because MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2) bars plaintiffs' causes of action against defendant under MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102).

  3. Iovino v. Michigan

    228 Mich. App. 125 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    Indeed, only the MDOT can order the installation of active railroad warning devices, advance warning signs, and railroad crossbucks. Edington v Grand Trunk W R Co, 165 Mich. App. 163, 168, n 3; 418 N.W.2d 415 (1987). Here, the MDOT, the sole public body with the authority to order additional or improved railroad warning devices, recognized the need to oversee the safety of the intersection and, thus, ordered the installation of crossing gates.

  4. Turner v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    497 N.W.2d 571 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times
    In Turner, supra, this Court rejected the assertion that the railroad had a common-law duty to petition the proper government agency for authority to install additional warning devices because MCL 257.668(2); MSA 9.2368(2) evidenced the Legislature's intent that liability not be premised upon the absence of warning devices at a railroad crossing unless the railroad failed to follow an order from the proper authority to install these devices.

    Accordingly, the MDOT cannot be held liable. Edington v Grand Trunk W R Co, 165 Mich. App. 163; 418 N.W.2d 415 (1987). We also note that in Edington the plaintiffs' complaint also included allegations of negligence against the railroads and the road commission for failing to request the installation of warning devices.

  5. Baughman v. Conrail

    460 N.W.2d 895 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    The terms of this statute are clear and unambiguous and preclude liability for failure to install warning devices unless so ordered by a public authority. Edington v Grand Trunk W R Co, 165 Mich. App. 163, 168-169; 418 N.W.2d 415 (1987), lv den 430 Mich. 900 (1988). There was no order to install gates at the crossing in question prior to the accident, thus defendant cannot be held liable for negligence in failing to install gates or other warning devices.

  6. Beck v. Galloway Peas Lumber Co.

    239 S.W. 166 (Mo. Ct. App. 1922)   Cited 9 times

    Morgan v. Mining Co., 141 S.W. 735; Allen v. Quercus Lbr. Co., 190 Mo. App. 399, 190 S.W. 86; State ex rel. Quercus Lbr. Co. v. Robertson, 197 S.W. 79; Bane v. Irwin, 172 Mo. 316; Jewell v. Bolt Nut Co., 231 Mo. 194; George v. Railroad Co., 225 Mo. 406-413; McMurray v. Railroad Co., 225 Mo. 302; Patrum v. Railroad, 259 Mo. 109; Williams v. Pryor et al., 272 Mo. 613. The servant only assumes the risk of the employment after the master has exercised ordinary care. (2) The burden is on the defendant to establish the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Morgan v. Zinc Co., 199 S.W. 590; Edington v. Railroad Co., 204 Mo. 61; Strickland v. Woolworth Co., 143 Mo. App. 528, 127 S.W. 628; Kile v. Light Co., 149 Mo. App. 354, 130 S.W. 89; Liston v. Railroad Co., 149 Mo. App. 231; 130 S.W. 381; Holman v. Iron Co., 152 Mo. App. 672, 133 S.W. 389; Peppers v. Glass Co., 148 S.W. 401; Kiser v. Railroad Co., 188 Mo. App. 169, 175 S.W. 98; Behncke v. Mining Co., 189 Mo. App. 639, 175 S.W. 271; Martin v. Oil Co., 184 S.W. 127. COX, P.J.