OCTOBER TERM, 1914.*

WELLS v. ANN ARBOR RAILROAD CO.

1. CARRIERS-NEGLIGENCE-STATIONS-PASSENGERS.

Where defendant provided no approach to its station except along the track, and no lights or means of signaling its motor cars, and plaintiff, who understood the conditions existing, on an evening about 8:30, after dark, came to a small station to take the car home, signaling to it as it approached, and was struck when about half the length of the car had passed her, where, on cross-examination, she admitted that she was about two feet from the track and the car was shown to have extended 24 to 30 inches over the rail, her recovery was barred by contributory negligence, under a declaration which failed to count upon any theory of discovered negligence. KUHN and MOORE, JJ., dissenting.

2. SAME-TRIAL-OPENING STATEMENT.

Since it is, as a rule, improper to argue the facts or the legal questions in a case in making the opening statement to the jury, the attorney for plaintiff erred in stating as a part of his opening, that the defendant owed to the public the responsibilities and duty of maintaining as an approach to its station the portion of its track and roadway that the public habitually passed over to reach the station, and that the defendant owed to her the same degree of care which it owed to a passenger, and should have exercised the highest degree of care of which human foresight is capable, with other argument along similar lines.

3. SAME ARGUMENT-MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL.

It was also improper and prejudicial to argue to the jury, in closing his case, which one of them would suffer plain

* Continued from Vol. 183.