Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co. v. Boomer
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc (Mich. 1982)
- Provencal v. Parker (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)
- Stroh Brewery Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1981)
- Swindlehurst v. Resistance Welder Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
- Gulick v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Manufacturing Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 1977)
- Minster Machine Co. v. Diamond Stamping Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Curtis Noll Corp. (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)
- Herrera v. Voris (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1973)
- Whirlpool Corporation v. Morse (D. Minn. 1963)
- Mayer v. FAIRLAWN JEWISH CENTER AND RANDALL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (N.J. 1962)
- Roe v. Bryant & Johnston Co. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1961)
- The Detroit Edison Company v. Price Brothers Company (6th Cir. 1957)
- American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Priebe (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1956)
- Buffa v. General Motors Corporation (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1955)
- Buckner v. Foster (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1952)
- Union Electric Co. v. Lovell Livestock Co. (Mont. 1933)
- Detroit Edison Co. v. Stricker (6th Cir. 1933)
- Village of Portland v. Citizens Telephone Co. (Mich. 1919)
- Paisley v. United Parcel Service, Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
- Moyses v. Spartan Asphalt Paving Co. (Mich. 1970)
- Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad v. Arthur Dixon Transfer Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1951)
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). In the case determining the liability of the plaintiff at the suit of Glappa, it was contended by the railroad company that there was no negligence shown on its part. Mr. Justice Brooke, in writing the opinion of this court, in discussing this question, said:
“It does not, however, therefore necessarily follow that the defendant railway was free from negligence. The mere presence of the sand upon the track was no menace to the plaintiff. If the cars had not been moved, the plaintiff would not have been injured. It e was the alleged negligent movement of the cars overt the accumulated sand which caused the injury.” S
This determines actionable negligence on the part of the plaintiff and was the active negligence which was directly responsible for Glappa’s injuries. The railroad company, in order to sustain its claim in this action, contends that Boomer was negligent. We think it thus clearly appears and is established that the plaintiff and defendant were joint tortfeasors.
As between actual joint tortfeasors the law will not ,; enforce contribution or indemnity. This exception to the general rule, that whenever the wrongful act of l one person results in liability being imposed on an- 1 other the latter may have indemnity from the person j actually guilty of the wrong, has recently had the consideration of this court in the case of Township of Hart v. Noret, 191 Mich. 427 (158 N. W. 17). In this opinion the subject was discussed and a great many cases cited, and that class of cases are especially referred to which are exceptions to the rule that where parties are in pari delicto the one cannot recover]]
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.