Peterson v. Fargo-Moorhead Street Railway Company

• Decision Date: 14 July 1917
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

164 N.W. 42

37 N.D. 440

JAMES PETERSON v. FARGO-MOORHEAD STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 14, 1917

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, Chas. A. Pollock, J.

Reversed.

Judgment of the trial court reversed and a new trial granted with the costs to plaintiff.

M. A Hildreth, for appellant.

The fellow-servant rule is abolished in this state in so far as concerns actions against common carriers of persons and property, and neither the negligence of the fellow servant nor that of the plaintiff, is a bar to an action for damages. The statute is constitutional. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 4804, 4805.

To strike down a state statute as violative of the Federal Constitution, one must show that he is within the class with respect to whom the act is unconstitutional, and must show that the alleged unconstitutionality feature injuries him and so operates as to deprive him of rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 531, 58 L.Ed. 713, 34 S.Ct. 359; Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524, 54 L.Ed. 868, 30 S.Ct. 594; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540, 550, 56 L.Ed. 1197, 1201, 32 S.Ct. 784; Rosenthal v. New York, 226 U.S. 260, 271, 57 L.Ed. 212, 217, 33 S.Ct. 27, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 71.

It is well settled by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the equal protection of the law is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and that that is satisfied if the law applies equally to all persons in like situations and conditions. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa (Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Cutts), 94 U.S. 155, 163, 24 L.Ed. 94, 95; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U.S. 199, 210- 214, 58 L.Ed. 1276, 1281-1283, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 S.Ct. 859; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 382, 38 L.Ed. 487, 14 S.Ct. 570; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Hale, 219 U.S. 307, 55 L.Ed. 229, 31 S.Ct. 246; Williams v. Arkansas, 217 U.S. 79, 54 L.Ed. 673, 30 S.Ct. 493, 18 Ann. Cas. 865; Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 222 U.S. 225, 233, 56 L.Ed. 175, 178, 32 S.Ct. 74, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 529; Aluminum Co. v. Rumsey, 222 U.S. 251, 255, 56 L.Ed. 185, 189, 32 S.Ct. 76, 1 N. C. C. A. 251.

In this case the proof shows beyond question that the street car was derailed because of the improper condition of the switch either from lack of repairs or improper repairs. There being evidence upon this question, even though disputed, it still made a case for the jury, and the court committed reversible error in taking the case from the jury. Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cummings, 106 U.S. 700, 27 L.Ed. 266, 1 S.Ct. 493; Wyldes v. Patterson, 31 N.D. 310, 153 N.W. 630; 10 Rose's Notes (U.S.) 438, 439; The Phoenix, 34 F. 760; Clyde v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 59 F. 394; The Joseph B. Thomas, 46 L. R. A. 58, 30 C. C. A. 333, 56 U.S. App. 619, 86 F. 658, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 105; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. George, 88 Va. 223, 228, 13 S.E. 429; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Thomas, 90 Va. 209, 44 Am. St. Rep. 906, 17 S.E. 884; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Ampey, 93 Va. 108, 25 S.E. 226; Thomp. Neg. §§ 4853, 4856; Siegel, C. & Co. v. Troka, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 647, and note (218 Ill. 559, 109 Am. St. Rep. 302, 75 N.E. 1053, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 166); Kern v. DeCastro & D. Sugar Ref. Co. 24 N.Y.S. R. 748, 5 N.Y.S. 548; Shearm. & Redf. Neg. 5th ed. § 188; 2 Labatt, Mast. & S. § 184; Lutz v. Atlantic & P. R. Co. 16 L.R.A. 819, note.

If there is any legal evidence tending to prove negligence on the part of the defendant, then the question is one for the jury, and can only be taken from the jury when only one inference can be drawn. Severtson v. Northern P. R. Co. 32 N.D. 200, 155 N.W. 11; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Felton v. Midland Continental R. Co. 32 N.D. 223, 155 N.W. 23.

Fowler & Green, for respondent.

In the absence of a statutory requirement, mere absence of blocking of a switch or frog does not show actionable negligence. Cooper v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 716, 86 C. C. A. 272, 159 F. 82, 14 Ann. Cas. 693, and cases.

The defendant is not an insurer of the condition of its switches. It is only required to use ordinary care to furnish reasonably safe switches and to keep them in a reasonably safe condition. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Needham, 25 L.R.A. 835, 11 C. C. A. 56, 27 U.S. App. 227, 63 F. 107; Shadford v. Ann Arbor Street R. Co. 111 Mich. 390, 69 N.W. 661, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 88; Ness v. Great Northern R. Co. 25 N.D. 572, 142 N.W. 165; Great Northern R. Co. v. Johnson, 125 C. C. A. 123, 207 F. 521; O'Neill v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 66 Neb. 638, 60 L.R.A. 445, 92 N.W. 731, 1 Ann. Cas. 337; Prybileski v. Northwestern Coal R. Co. 98 Wis. 413, 74 N.W. 117; Titus v. Bradford, B. & K. R. Co. 136 Pa. 618, 20 Am. St. Rep. 944, 20 A. 517; Elliott, Railroads, § 1272, and cases.

Plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon the negligence alleged in the complaint. In this he failed. Hall v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 60, 111 N.W. 609, 14 Ann. Cas. 960.

Where specific and particular acts of negligence are alleged and relied upon for a recovery, plaintiff is confined to them. Ibid.; Birmingham R. Light & P. Co. v. O'Brien, 185 Ala. 617, 64 So. 343; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Leonard, 126 Ill.App. 189; Cook v. Newhall, 213 Mass. 392, 101 N.E. 72; Israel v. United R. Co. 172 Mo.App. 656, 155 S.W. 1092; Williams v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 169 Mo.App. 468, 155 S.W. 64.

The trial court committed no error in holding that appellant failed to make out his case, and very properly directed a verdict for defendant. Ness v. Great Northern R. Co. 25 N.D. 572, 142 N.W. 165; Great Northern R. Co. v. Johnson, 125 C. C. A. 183, 207 F. 521; Curtin v. Boston Elev. R. Co. 194 Mass. 260, 80 N.E. 522; Donnelly v. New York & H. R. Co. 3 A.D. 408, 38 N.Y.S. 709; McCann v. Interurban Street R. Co. 117 A.D. 188, 102 N.Y.S. 296; Beebe v. St. Louis Transit Co. 206 Mo. 419, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 760, 103 S.W. 1019; Jenkins v. St. Louis City R. Co. 105 Minn. 504, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 401, 117 S.W. 928.

Although there is oral testimony to prove an alleged fact upon the existence of which a litigant's cause of action or defense depends, still if the admitted physical facts demonstrate to a certainty its non-existence, the court properly directs the verdict. Larson v. Swift & Co. 116 Minn. 509, 134 N.W. 122; Samulski v. Menasha Paper Co. 147 Wis. 285, 133 N.W. 142; Musbach v. Wisconsin Chair Co. 108 Wis. 57, 84 N.W. 36.

Where oral testimony is squarely contrary to the undisputed physical facts, there is no question for the jury. Hall v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 60, 111 N.W. 609, 14 Ann. Cas. 960; Musbach v. Wisconsin Chair Co. 108 Wis. 57, 84 N.W. 36.

The plaintiff, the conductor, and the motorman were fellow servants. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Barker, 169 Ind. 670, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 542, 83 N.E. 369, 19 Ann. Cas. 375; Berg v. Seattle R. & S. R. Co. 44 Wash. 14, 120 Am. St. Rep. 968, 87 P. 34; Chicago City R. Co. v. Leach, 208 Ill. 198, 100 Am. St. Rep. 216, 70 N.E. 222; Savage v. Nassau Electric R. Co. 42 A.D. 241, 59 N.Y.S. 225, affirmed in 168 N.Y. 680, 61 N.E. 1134; Van Wickle v. Manhattan R. Co. 23 Blatchf. 422, 32 F. 278; Rittenhouse v. Wilmington Street R. Co. 120 N.C. 544, 26 N.E. 922, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 224; Baltimore Trust & G. Co. v. Atlanta Traction Co. 69 F. 358.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application here. The pleadings were not framed nor the cause tried upon any such theory. Particular and specific acts of negligence are pleaded and relied upon, and that disposes of the question, and the facts do not warrant its application. Birmingham R. Light & P. Co. v. O'Brien, 185 Ala. 617, 64 So. 343; Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Leonard, 126 Ill.App. 189; Cook v. Newhall, 213 Mass. 392, 101 N.E. 72; Israel v. United R. Co. 172 Mo.App. 656, 155 S.W. 1092; Williams v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 169 Mo.App. 468, 155 S.W. 64; Benedict v. Potts, 88 Md. 52, 41 L.R.A. 478, 40 A. 1067, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 484; 6 Thomp. Neg. § 7635.

"The duty of keeping switches closed and locked while not in use was not one of the absolute duties of the defendant, but was an assignable duty relating to a detail of operation which could properly be delegated to an employee." Dixon v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. 147 Mich. 667, 111 N.W. 200; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Barker, 169 Ind. 670, 17 L.R.A.(N. S.) 542, 83 N.E. 369, 14 Ann. Cas. 375, and cases; Daves v. Southern P. Co. 98 Cal. 19, 35 Am. St. Rep. 133, 32 P. 708, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 367; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Needham, 25 L.R.A. 833, 11 C. C. A. 56, 27 U.S. App. 227, 63 F. 107; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Sipes, 23 Colo. 226, 47 P. 287; Miller v. Southern P. Co. 20 Ore. 285, 26 P. 70.

The section of our statute relied upon has no application to street railway companies, but only applies to railroad companies, the employees of which are engaged in the performance of duties of a peculiarly hazardous nature. Comp. Laws 1913, § 4804.

If this statute includes within its terms other common carriers than steam railroads, it violates § 11, Constitution of North Dakota, which provides that "all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation." N.D. Const. § 20.

But the statute has no application here. There are two rules of construction in considering such a statute. Massachusetts Loan & T. Co. v. Hamilton, 32 C. C. A. 46, 59 U.S. App. 403, 88 F. 589; Norfolk & P. Traction Co. v. Ellington, 108 Va. 245, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 117, 61 S.E. 779; Northern P. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2 N.D. 310, 51 N.W. 386; Erskine v. Nelson County, 4 N.D. 66, 27 L.R.A. 696, 58 N.W. 348; Folsom v. Kilbourne, 5 N.D. 402, 67 N.W. 291.

Words of general import are limited by words of restricted import immediately following and relating to the same subject. 36 Cyc. 1119.

The word "r...