Woods v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1888
• Citation: 40 N.W. 510,39 Minn. 435
• Parties: WOODS v ST. PAUL & D. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

39 Minn. 435

40 N.W. 510

WOODSvST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 22, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The evidence in this case, relied on to establish defendant's negligence, examined and considered, and held insufficient to make a case for the jury.

Where an employe undertakes a hazardous employment, he is deemed to assume the risks of the same, so far as they are open to observation, or are known to him. ¹

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Action for damages by Robert Woods against the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Thomas Canty, for appellant.

James Smith, Jr., John D. O'Brien, and W. A. Barr, for appellee.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendant company was engaged in switching a train of coal cars, which were being passed over scales and weighed. The train was backed up near the scales, and the rear cars were detached in their order, and were severally sent over the scales, upon which they were weighed while moving,with sufficient momentum to carry them over to the track beyond. This movement, imparted to them by the action of the engine attached to the front or most distant portion of the train, is commonly called “kicking.” The track beyond the scales was built upon a platform or trestle-work upon a descending grade. The cars ran down different distances upon the trestle, and were stopped by others in front of them, or by a brakeman, who held and controlled that portion of the train until all the cars were passed over and coupled. It was the business of the plaintiff to couple these cars as they came together. After coupling a car he would pass to the rear of the same to couple the next as it came down, and in doing so would pass out upon the trestle-work behind the last car. The plaintiff testifies, in substance, that at the time of the injury complained of he was proceeding as usual behind the last car, preparing to couple the succeeding one, when he observed one coming from the scales more rapidly than usual; that he turned back to get out of the way, and in doing so fell through the opening in the trestle-work, and was overtaken by the car and dragged along several feet, and in the emergency put out his hand to save himself, and it was caught and injured between the cars. He was used to the business, but was working in that place for the first time that day, and had been so engaged two or three hours. The principal question presented here is whether the accident is shown to have been the result of the defendant's negligence. Whether the place at which the coupling was required to be done was dangerous or not, it is evident that the risks, whatever they may have been, from this cause, were assumed by the plaintiff in entering upon and continuing in the employment of coupling cars there. So, also, we think, if the plaintiff knew or ought to have known (as it appears he did) the method adopted by the defendant in switching and weighing coal cars in the yard, he will also be presumed to have assumed the risks naturally incident thereto. Whether the practice of sending cars over the scales by “kicking” was a safe one, under the circumstances, we need not therefore consider. And there is no evidence in the case showing how the car...