Sink v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Transworld Airlines, Inc.

    369 F. Supp. 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    In addition to the requirement that the common carrier provide safe passage for its passengers, the State of Michigan also requires that a common carrier provide its passengers a safe terminal for both board and exiting the carrier. Sink v. Grand Trunk Western Ry., 227 Mich. 21, 198 N.W. 238 (1924). See also Ketchum v. Denver Rio Grande Western R. Co., 175 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1949).

  2. Hoffner v. Lanctoe

    492 Mich. 450 (Mich. 2012)   Cited 547 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a slippery sidewalk in front of a fitness center was not effectively unavoidable because, although there was no alternative route to enter the building, the plaintiff nevertheless had a choice as to whether she would confront the hazard

    Thus, we hold that the owner's reason for inviting persons onto the premises is the primary consideration when determining the visitor's status: In order to establish invitee status, a plaintiff must show that the premises were held open for a commercial purpose. Stitt, 462 Mich. at 604, 614 N.W.2d 88; see also Sink v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 227 Mich. 21, 198 N.W. 238 (1924). Perhaps what is most troubling regarding the theory of liability advanced by plaintiff is that it would result, if upheld, in an expansion of liability by imposing a new, greater duty than that already owed to invitees.

  3. Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship

    462 Mich. 591 (Mich. 2000)   Cited 335 times
    Holding that person attending bible study on church premises who injured herself after falling over a concrete tire stop in church parking lot was licensee for purposes of church's duty of care

    On the one hand, several of our decisions appear to support the requirement that the landowner's premises be held open for a commercial business purpose. See, e.g., Perl vCohodas, Peterson, Paoli, Nast Co, 295 Mich. 325; 294 N.W. 697 (1940); Diefenbach v Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co, 280 Mich. 507; 273 N.W. 783 (1937);Sink v Grand Trunk Western R Co, 227 Mich. 21; 198 N.W. 238 (1924). Indeed, several panels of our Court of Appeals have interpreted our decisions as supporting the requirement of a business purpose.

  4. Hickman v. First Nat. Bk. of Great Falls

    112 Mont. 398 (Mont. 1941)   Cited 19 times

    In the case of Hayes v. Sampsell, 195 Ill. App. 365, it is held: "Where it appeared that plaintiff boarded defendant's electric car at the invitation of defendant's motorman, such invitation was an act within the scope of such motorman's employment, although such motorman may have acted contrary to defendant's orders and may have been answerable for disobedience of defendant's rules for the reason that such act of such motorman could not affect the status of plaintiff on defendant's car or render his presence thereon unlawful." (See, also, Sink v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 227 Mich. 21, 198 N.W. 238; Whitehead v. St. Louis Railway Co., 99 Mo. 263, 11 S.W. 751, 753, 6 L.R.A. 409; Garretzen v. Duenckel, 50 Mo. 104, 107, 11 Am. Rep. 405; Cousins v. Hannibal St. J.Ry. Co., 66 Mo. 572, 576; Ramsden v. Boston A. Ry. Co., 104 Mass. 117, 120, 6 Am. Rep. 200; Wilton v. Middlesex Ry. Co., 107 Mass. 108, 9 Am. Rep. 11; St. Joseph W. Railway Co. v. Wheeler, 35 Kan. 185, 10 P. 461; Lake Shore M.S.R. Co. v. Brown, 123 Ill. 162, 14 N.E. 197, 202, 5 Am. St. Rep. 510.) "If in giving the invitation, the employee acted within the scope of his authority, the person invited by him occupies the status of an invitee with respect to the owner."

  5. Yazoo M.V.R. Co. v. Mansfield

    160 Miss. 672 (Miss. 1931)   Cited 15 times

    The absence of the chain on the platform of the caboose considered, it was merely fortuitous that the one injured was an invitee rather than a servant or one who not in connection with business of the defendant company, being injured, is entitled to recover his damages from the offending company. Sink v. Grand Trunk Co., 227 Mich. 21, 198 N.W. 238; I.C.R.R. Co. v. Cole, 113 Miss. 896, 74 So. 766; St. L. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Stacy, 77 Okla. 165, 171 P. 870; Woods v. Mo. P. Co., 149 Mo. App. 507. The wide open space in the back of the middle of the guard of the platform of the caboose in question was nothing less than nor other than "in the nature of a trap."