Case Name: Edwin Dawe, Administrator of the Estate of Anna McIntosh, Deceased, v. The Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1894-10-16
Citations: 102 Mich. 307
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwin Dawe, Administrator of the Estate of Anna McIntosh, Deceased, v. The Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company.
Judges: Long, Grant, and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Montgomery, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 307–312

Head Matter:
Edwin Dawe, Administrator of the Estate of Anna McIntosh, Deceased, v. The Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company.
Railroad companies — Accident at crossing — Open gates — Contributor negligence.
1. Plaintiff’s intestate is held to have been guilty of such negligence, in walking a distance of 48 feet after passing an open railroad gate at a city street crossing, and before reaching the track, where she was struck by a passenger train, during which time she could have seen the train for a distance of 435 fept if she had looked in the direction from which it was coming, as to bar a recovery, unless it should be held that the fact that the gate was not let down excused her from exercising care in crossing the track.
3. The rule established by Richmond v. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374, and Evans v. Railroad Co., 88 Id. 443, that a party approaching a railroad- track has a right to rely upon the absence of such warnings of danger as it is shown to be the custom of the railroad company to give, will not excuse the negligence of the decedent, who testified that she thought the gates did not fall for a yard engine, for, if she was looking for a yard engine, as she testified, she could as easily have seen the passenger train.
Error to Saginaw. (Hart, J., presiding.)
Argued June 28, 1894.
Decided October 16, 1894.
Negligence case. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinions.
E. L. Beach, for appellant.
Hanchett, Stark & Hanchett, for defendant.
As to duty of looking and listening, or stopping and listening, before crossing or attempting to cross railroad tracks, see Jensen v. Railroad Co., 102 Mich. 176, 181, and note.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
Plaintiff's' intestate, Anna McIntosh, instituted this suit to recover for personal injuries. The circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant. She has since deceased, and her administrator brings the case here for review.
Deceased testified that she was struck by an incoming train while crossing the railway track of defendant. The. evidence shows that, traversing a distance of 48 feet before she reached the track in- question, and after passing the gate, she could have seen the approaching train for a distance of 425 feet at least, had she looked.
The case is ruled by Gardner v. Railroad Co., 97 Mich. 240, and the cases there cited, unless it shall be held that the fact that the gate was not let down excused the deceased from exercising care in crossing the track. The plaintiff relies upon the cases of Richmond v. Railway Co., 87 Mich. 374, and Evans v. Railroad Co., 88 Id. 442. The rule established by these cases is that a party approaching a railroad track has a right to rely upon the absence of such warnings of danger as it is shown to be the custom of the railroad company to give. But in the present case the deceased herself testified that she thought the gates did not fall for a yard engine. As the circuit judge very pertinently said:
" If she was looking to see a yard engine, of course she could see a regular train as easily.''
The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
Long, Grant, and Hooker, JJ., concurred with Montgomery, J.