Case Name: DOHERTY v. DETROIT CITIZENS' STREET-RAILWAY CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1898-09-27
Citations: 118 Mich. 209
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOHERTY v. DETROIT CITIZENS’ STREET-RAILWAY CO.
Judges: Grant, C. J., and Long, J., concurred with Hooker, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 209–213

Head Matter:
DOHERTY v. DETROIT CITIZENS’ STREET-RAILWAY CO.
Street Railways — Injury to Pedestrian — Contributory Negligence.
A pedestrian is, as a matter of law, guilty of contributory negligence, precluding a recovery for injuries received from being struck by a street car, where, after looking up and down the track when distant therefrom some 12 feet, and failing, because his view was obstructed by a covered wagon standing backed up to the curb, to see the approaching car, which would have been visible to him had he looked again when within two or three feet of the track, he proceeded directly in front of such car. Moore and Montgomery, JJ., dissenting.
Error to Wayne; Lillibridge, J.
Submitted June 8, 1898.
Decided September 27, 1898.
Rehearing granted April 18,1899.
Reargued June 6, 1899.
Former opinion approved September 19, 1899.
Case by John Doherty against the Detroit Citizens’ Street-Railway Company for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Charles JR. Whitman, for appellant.
Brennan, Donnelly & Van De Mark, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.
The question in this case is whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The proof conclusively shows that he walked upon a track of a street railway, and was almost instantly struck by the car. The most favorable view of the evidence is that he started to cross the street, and, at a distance of 12 feet or thereabouts from the track, looked to see if a car was coming, and saw none, but did see a covered grocery wagon and horse between him and the approaching car. He did not look again, but walked directly to and upon the track. The grocery wagon was not upon the track, and, when the car passed it, the wagon must have been sufficiently far from the track to permit the car to pass. Hence, when the plaintiff was within two or three feet of the track, he must have had an unobstructed view of the track, and the approaching car must then have been visible to him had he looked towards it. In the case of McGee v. Railway Co., 102 Mich. 107 (26 L. R. A. 300, 47 Am. St. Rep. 507), it was held that it was not sufficient for a man to look when 15 feet from the track, but that it was his duty to look again before stepping upon the track. This was the rule laid down as to steam roads in the case of Houghton v. Railway Co., 99 Mich. 308. If, as contended, the plaintiff's view was obstructed by the wagon, that was a reason for greater caution. We are unable to distinguish this case from the McGee Case, and are of the opinion that it should be, and it is therefore, affirmed.
Grant, C. J., and Long, J., concurred with Hooker, J.