Fay v. Minneapolis & St. L. RY Co.

• Citation: 15 N.W. 241,30 Minn. 231
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Decision Date: 20 February 1883
• Parties: FAY v MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY CO.

30 Minn. 231

15 N.W. 241

FAYvMINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed February 20, 1883.

Appeal from order of district court, county of Ramsey, denying defendant's motion for new trial.

O'Brien, Eller & O'Brien, for respondent.

J. D. Springer and O'Brien & Wilson, for appellant.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The respondent, a brakeman in the employ of the railway company, appellant, while engaged in coupling cars, sustained an injury to his hand, caused by the condition of the coupling attachment of one of the cars, which he alleges had been suffered to remain out of repair through the negligence of the company. The car did not belong to the company, but was a foreign car in its possession and use. The injury is admitted, but the negligence is denied. The evidence tended to prove the following facts: At the time of the accident this car had been in the company's yard at Minneapolis about one week and out of repair. The draw-bar of the coupling attachment was loose or broken, so as to slide back when it was brought in connection with the draw-bar of the forward car, when plaintiff undertook to effect a coupling, so as to allow the draw-bar of the latter to press directly against the “dead-wood,” a wooden block fastened to the end of the car, so that respondent's hand was thereby suddenly caught between the end of the draw-bar of the approaching car and the “dead-wood,” and seriously injured. The company had in its employ a car inspector, whose duty it was to be present in the yard daily, and to inspect all cars and mark those needing repairs. The defect in this car was readily discernible upon proper inspection, and the evidence tended to show that it had existed a considerable length of time, and that plaintiff had no notice of it, and was injured in consequence of it. The car appears to have been used by the company in the same manner and kind of service as its own cars.

Among the rules of the company governing the conduct of employes at the time was one which provided that “coupling by hand is strictly prohibited. Employes who couple cars will furnish themselves with a stick necessary for the purpose.” The plaintiff denied that he had notice of any such rule, and there is no evidence that he had. The most that appears is that the rules were printed on time-cards, and were given to the heads of departments and local agents to be distributed to the several employes under their charge. But it does not appear that they were given to plaintiff, or that his attention was ever called to them. And the evidence, which is...