Connelly v. Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 27 December 1887 |
| Citation | 35 N.W. 582,38 Minn. 80 |
| Parties | Terence Connelly, Administrator, v. Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of James Jordan deceased, brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover $ 5,000 damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant resulting in the killing of the deceased. Upon the trial, before Young, J., and a jury, the court dismissed the action after plaintiff rested his case. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Merrick & Merrick, for appellant.
W. H Norris, for respondent.
We are of the opinion that the court properly dismissed the action for the insufficiency of the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff's intestate was one of the section or track men of the defendant, and employed upon its tracks used for transfer and switching purposes at Minneapolis. From the depot two tracks of the defendant (coming together at a switch at that point) extend upon a curve in a south-easterly direction to and beyond the place of the accident. One of these may be called the "main" track, and the other the "side" or "mill" track. A short time before the accident, a train of freight cars of considerable length had been run on the main track, and left standing there, extending from near the place of the accident up towards the depot. While these cars were standing there, the deceased, with his fellow-laborers, commenced the work of straightening a rail on the same track, and within less than 30 feet of the southerly or rear end of the train. While this was being done, the engine which did the business of switching and transferring cars about these premises, drew up several other cars over the side track, past the place of the accident, to the depot switch, and shoved them back on the main track, bringing them forcibly in contact with the cars already standing there, for the purpose of bunting the whole train backward, so that the cars should clear the switch. Just at this time the deceased stepped from the point where he was working still nearer the rear end of the train, and, turning his back to it, stood upon the track for the purpose of taking a sight at the rail to see if it was straight. In this position he was struck in the back by the train as it was suddenly forced backward as above stated. From the injuries thus received he died. The operations of the engine at the depot switch, at the other end of the train, could not be seen from the place where these men were working. There were several other tracks of other railroads in this immediate vicinity, and so many engine bells were ringing that these workmen could not have heard or distinguished the bell of this engine if it had been ringing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial