Anderson v. Great N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1907
• Parties: ANDERSON v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

102 Minn. 355

113 N.W. 913

ANDERSON

v.GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 15, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by John Albert Anderson against the Great Northern Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff was injured by the action of a switching crew in pushing other cars against a car which he was engaged in repairing on a ‘rip’ track. The printed rules required repair men to post a blue flag as a protecting signal. Plaintiff's testimony tended to show that the foreman instructed him that it was the duty of the first man who went to work to post the flag, that this was the practice, and that in this case a particular co-laborer was the first man to begin the work. The court charged the jury that plaintiff could not recover if he knew of the printed rule, and submitted the question of whether he was guilty of contributory negligence in believing that his co-laborer was the first man to begin work and that he had posted the flag. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The action of the trial court in refusing to disturb the verdict is sustained. M. L. Countryman, for appellant.

Charles Loring and Martin O'Brien, for respondent.

JAGGARD, J.

Plaintiff had a verdict in an action for personal injuries. Defendant appealed from a judgment entered after the court had denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff, a car repairer, made needed repairs on cars placed for that purpose on a repair or ‘rip’ track. The printed rules of the company required the laborers engaged in such work to protect themselves by conspicuously displaying a blue flag. That flag, when posted upon or near cars upon a repair track, was a known signal that car repairers were at work upon that track, and was an absolute prohibition against moving any of the cars thereon, or pushing or switching any other cars against them. While plaintiff was engaged at work on the track, a switching crew pushed other cars upon the repair track, and against the car on which he was working, and injured him. The alleged negligence of defendant was the failure of the first man who went to work on the repair track to post the blue flag.

The first of defendant's principal contentions is as follows: That ‘an employé is bound to obey all of the reasonable rules of his employer with reference to the conduct of his business. Disobedience of such rules, if it contributes directly to the injury of the employé, conclusively charges him with negligence, which will bar any recovery of...