Brinker v. Michigan Central Railroad
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boutell v. Michigan Central Railroad (Mich. 1903)
- Bond v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. (Mich. 1901)
- Beagle v. Pere Marquette Railroad (Mich. 1915)
- Beauerle v. Michigan Central Railroad (Mich. 1908)
- Storrs v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. (Mich. 1905)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
(after stating the facts). The charge of the court was correct, both as to the facts and the law. Plaintiff was not hampered by the care of his horse. He was in no more dangerous position than he would have been on foot. He testified that in the sand his horse and wagon made no noise. He could have stopped as quickly as if he had been walking. He alone was responsible for supposing that the train was on the other road. He knew that a train was approaching, and it was his duty to stop and ascertain which road it was on. There was no occasion for hurry. He was the master of his own movements, and slight precaution would have averted the accident. Mahlen v. Railway Co., 49 Mich. 585. He had knowledge that a train was approaching, and needed no other warning. Haas v. Railroad Co., 47 Mich. 401; White v. Railway Co., 102 Wis. 489.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.