Akers v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 October 1894
• Citation: 58 Minn. 540,60 N.W. 669
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: AKERS v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

58 Minn. 540

60 N.W. 669

AKERS

v.CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 26, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Gen. Laws 1887, c. 16, requiring railway companies to block “frogs” in their yards and terminal stations, was designed for the protection of those rightfully on the premises, and not of trespassers, and does not abrogate the ordinary rules that, in order to recover from the owner or occupant on account of the unsafe condition of his premises, the injured party must have been rightfully upon them, and himself free from contributory negligence.

2. Upon the facts of this case there was no invitation, express or implied, on part of the defendant to the public to use its yard for purposes of travel, and hence it owed no duty to them to block its frogs so as to render the yard and tracks safe for travel.

3. To render the owner of premises liable (in the absence of actual malice) for their unsafe condition, it is not enough that he suffered, in the sense of not expressly and continuously forbidding, their use by people who entered merely for their own convenience, and from motives to which no act of the owner contributed. He must have invited their use in that way, either expressly or impliedly by acts which led people to believe that the premises were intended by him to be so used, and that such use was in accordance with the intention and design with which they were prepared or allowed to be used.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; J. J. Egan, Judge.

Action by Charles N. Akers, as administrator of the estate of Frank A. Erling, against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Verdict for defendant. From an order refusing a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. F. Lane and D. D. Williams, for appellant.

Thos. Wilson and S. L. Perrin, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Exhibit B is a map of defendant's yard in East St. Paul, in which the deceased was injured. The yard extends from Greenbrier street, on the east, to and beyond Jesse street, on the west. There was no street crossing the yard at grade, Jesse street not being open through the yard, and Payne avenue and Edgerton street crossing it on elevated bridges. Along the north side of the yard there was a high board fence with a barbed wire on top. Sometimes people who wished to make a short cut to or from the north side pulled off a board from the fence, and passed through, but when this was discovered the employés of the defendant would close up the opening. The regular approach to the depot, and the one provided by the company, was on the south side, by way of Farquier street; people on the north side passing over the elevated bridges across Payne avenue and Greenbrier street. It appears that persons who for mere reasons of convenience to themselves desired to make a short cut to or from the depot of defendant, instead of using the way of ingress and egress provided by it, frequently traveled along the tracks in the yard of the defendant, and made their way through openings in the fence on the north side, particularly at Payne avenue. But there is no evidence that the defendant ever, either expressly or impliedly, invited them to do so, or ever by word or act led any one to believe that its yard was intended or suited for any such purpose, or that it authorized it to be so used. The most that can be claimed from the evidence is that defendant suffered people to use it in that way, in the sense that it did not constantly expressly forbid or prevent their doing so. From the east end of the yard to a point west of the depot there were three tracks. The south one was used by trains to the depot. The north one was seldom used, and only for engines passing to or from the roundhouse, and for taking supplies to defendant's storehouse. The middle track was used almost continuously, many times an hour day and night, in switching cars to and from the numerous tracks on the west. The deceased had for some three years prior to the accident been in the employ of the defendant as “storekeeper,” his office being in the building marked “Storehouse,” but on the morning of that day he had resigned his place, and “taken his time,” and left the employment of the defendant, and another man had been put in his place; and he was not seen about the premises until the evening of that day, between 8 and 9 o'clock of November 1Oth, when he was struck by some cars, which were being switched on the middle...