Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. Miller
25 Mich. 274, 1872 Mich. LEXIS 104 (1872)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover for injuries caused by a defendant's negligence if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving they exercised due care, and failing to stop, look, and listen before crossing a railroad track is contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Miller, was a passenger in a wagon driven by Mr. Eldridge.
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. maintained large piles of wood near its tracks, which obstructed the view of approaching trains from the highway crossing.
- Both Miller and Eldridge were aware that the crossing was dangerous and that their view was obstructed.
- Eldridge, who was slightly hard of hearing, knew that trains often ran behind their scheduled times.
- As they approached the crossing, Eldridge checked his watch, remarked that it was past the regular train's time, and concluded there was no danger.
- Without stopping the wagon to look or listen for a train, Eldridge proceeded directly onto the railroad tracks.
- The wagon was struck by a train that was running 15 to 35 minutes behind schedule, resulting in Eldridge's death and severe injuries to Miller.
Procedural Posture:
- Miller sued the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. R. Co. in the circuit court for the county of Branch for negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Miller.
- The railroad company (plaintiff in error) appealed the judgment entered on the verdict to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's failure to stop, look, and listen for an approaching train before crossing a known dangerous railroad track constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law, thereby barring recovery from a potentially negligent railroad company?
Opinions:
Majority - Christiancy, Ch. J.
Yes, a plaintiff's failure to stop, look, and listen for an approaching train before crossing a known dangerous railroad track constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law, thereby barring recovery. The doctrine of contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if their own negligence proximately contributed to the injury, regardless of the defendant's negligence. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that they exercised due care. In this case, Miller and Eldridge were both aware of the danger, yet took no precautions; they did not stop, look, or listen, relying instead on a train schedule they knew to be unreliable. This failure to use one's senses to ascertain and avoid a known danger is not mere evidence of negligence but is negligence as a matter of law. Because their own undisputed conduct fell far below the standard of a reasonably prudent person, they are barred from recovery.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes the traditional, harsh doctrine of contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery in Michigan. It places the burden on the plaintiff to affirmatively show their own due care, not on the defendant to prove the plaintiff's negligence. The case is most significant for establishing the 'stop, look, and listen' rule, which holds that a person's failure to take these basic precautions at a railroad crossing is negligence per se (as a matter of law). This allows a judge to direct a verdict for the defendant, taking the question of negligence away from the jury if the plaintiff's own evidence demonstrates a clear lack of care.
