King v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company

• Citation: 79 N.W. 611,77 Minn. 104
• Decision Date: 22 June 1899
• Docket Number: 11,632 - (61)
• Parties: VANCE KING v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

79 N.W. 611

77 Minn. 104

VANCE KING v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 11,632 - (61)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 22, 1899

Action in the district court for Mower county to recover $2,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Whytock, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,000; and from a judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Personal Injury -- Highway Crossing -- Negligence -- Proximate Cause.

Action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a collision with defendant's locomotive at a public highway crossing. Held:

1. That the verdict, to the effect that the defendant was, and the plaintiff was not, guilty of negligence in the premises, is sustained by the evidence.

2. Where an injury is caused proximately by the concurring negligence of two or more parties, each is liable for the result, and that a request for instructions to the jury which ignored this rule was rightly refused.

H. H Field and Shepherd & Catherwood, for appellant.

Lafayette French and A. W. Wright, for respondent.

OPINION

*T, C.J. ^[1]

At about 11 o'clock of the morning of October 9, 1896, the plaintiff, while in the act of driving his team over a public-highway crossing of the defendant's railway tracks in the village of Blooming Prairie, this state, was struck and injured, his horses killed, and his wagon destroyed by the defendant's locomotive attached to a freight train. He brought this action to recover the damages so sustained. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were caused without any negligence on his part, but solely by the negligence of the defendant in running the locomotive over the crossing at a dangerous rate of speed, without giving any signal or warning of its approach. The answer put in issue these allegations of the complaint. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000, and a motion for a new trial by the defendant, which was denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict, from which the defendant appealed.

The assignments of error raised two general questions, (a) as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and (b) as to the correctness of the action of the trial court in charging the jury, and in refusing to give certain special requests for instructions.

1. The evidence is unquestionably sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the premises. This is practically conceded by its counsel; but it is vigorously urged that the evidence conclusively established that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, which was the cause of his injury.

The defendant's main track at the place of the accident runs north and south, with a side track on the west, about 35 feet from the main track, and parallel with it. A public street of the village, extending east and west, crosses the main and side tracks. At the time of the accident there was a flouring mill on the west side of the side track near the intersection of the street with the railway track. North of the mill, and on the same side of the track, there were coal sheds and other buildings, which obstructed the view to the north of a person traveling eastward over the street crossing; but between the tracks the view to the north was unobstructed for some 1,000 feet. There was at the time standing on the side track and on the north side of the street a box car, which extended into the street from two to six feet.

The plaintiff was familiar with the crossing and its surroundings. His own testimony as to the accident was to the effect that, as he was driving eastward along the street towards the crossing, and when about 300 feet away, he looked both to the north and to the south for a train, and saw none. His team was ordinarily gentle, and he had never had any trouble with them. As he approached the car standing on the mill track, his team was walking. He did not hear or know of any trains approaching. He heard no signals whatever. The mill was running, and made quite a noise, the wagon also, and the wind was blowing hard from the south. He did not stop his team until he was struck by the train. As he was driving around the car, some 35 feet from the main track, his near horse shied and started up, and he attempted to hold his team, but they went quite fast, and when he got onto the track he went "into darkness," and knew nothing. On his cross-examination he testified:

"Q. After they got over the side track, at what gait were your horses going? A. The near one was ahead, I was pulling on them. Q. At what gait were they going? A. They were not going much faster than a walk, if any. Q. As I understand it, the near horse faster than a walk, if any. Q. As I understand it, the near horse started up a little? A. Yes, sir. Q. But didn't go into a run? A. No, sir. Q. They were under full control? A. Yes, sir; any more than one was ahead of the other. Q. You had them under control all right? A. I couldn't stop them immediately. Q. You could have stopped them if you found it necessary to stop them? A. I couldn't stop them immediately right there. Q. I say they were under your control? A. It depends what you call under my control. Q. They were not running away? A. No, sir. Q. Not so but what you could readily have stopped them in a few feet? A. In a short space of time." Upon being recalled he further testified as follows: "Q. Now, last evening, Vance, you stated that as you drove up there your horses were frightened at this car that stood there. A. Yes, sir. Q. And, in reply to my question of what you were doing from that time until you went into what you termed this 'darkness,' you said you were looking after your horses. A. Yes, sir. Q. Why were you looking after your horses? A. They became frightened, and it was rough there, and it was my duty to take care of them, to keep from being thrown out of the wagon. Q. Which way did they go, -- directly across or angling about? A. No, sir; the near horse shying brought them kind of down the track south west. Q. Were you on this spring seat? A. Yes, sir. Did it require all your attention to look after your team? A. Yes, sir; I tried to hold them. Q. Did you have any time for anything else? A. No, sir; it took all my time to hold them; I didn't have them under control then."

There was evidence tending to show that the train was running from 20 to 30 miles an hour when it reached the crossing. The defendant claims that it was the absolute duty of the plaintiff to stop his team, and listen, before he attempted to drive past the car into a place of danger. The plaintiff's conduct is not to be judged by the facts as they appeared after the accident, but as they appeared to him at the time. He was familiar with the crossing, and presumably knew that when he passed the car he would have a clear view of the main track to the north, and an opportunity, before driving upon the main track, of learning absolutely whether or not a train was...