Baker v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 10 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,509 - (43) |
| Citation | 86 N.W. 82,83 Minn. 184 |
| Parties | THOMAS K. BAKER v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from an order of the district court for Ramsey county Jaggard, J., overruling a demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed.
Railway -- Proximate Cause of Injury.
The complaint alleges that defendant operates a railroad in Montana, and negligently permitted its roadbed to become soft and springy, and allowed sand, gravel, and stone to be deposited and remain on and near its track, and that it also negligently operated an engine with a defective pilot. While respondent, in the performance of his duties as a brakeman was riding in the cab of the engine, it sank upon the yielding roadbed, and the defective pilot struck into the gravel and stone, causing a stone to be thrown against the cab window of the engine, breaking the glass thereof, causing a piece of it to enter and injure respondent's eye. Held, that the acts stated were the proximate cause of the injury. Following Wallin v. Eastern Ry. Co., supra, page 149.
W. E. Dodge, for appellant.
Harvey E. Hall and Childs, Edgerton & Wickwire, for respondent.
It is stated in the complaint that appellant was operating a railroad in the state of Montana, and that respondent was employed by it in the operation of its railroad as brakeman upon freight trains; that appellant negligently suffered and allowed large amounts of sand, gravel, and stone to lie scattered upon, near, and about its track for a distance of about half a mile west of Bowdoin Pit, thereby obstructing the track and roadbed, rendering it unsafe and unnecessarily dangerous to brakemen and other employees in the performance of their duties while operating trains over such track. It is further stated that the material of the roadbed at that point was soft and yielding, and that it was unsafe and dangerous to run trains over it, for the reason that engines would violently and suddenly tip and careen laterally while running over the track. It was also charged that appellant negligently permitted one of its locomotives to become defective, in that the pilot was loose, so that it moved up and down. It is alleged that while plaintiff, in the performance of his duties as brakeman, was riding on this engine, and while passing over that portion of the track above described, on account of the springy nature of the roadbed and accumulation of gravel and sand, the pilot because of its loose and movable condition, struck into and scattered the gravel and stone upon the roadbed, causing a stone to strike against the window situated in the front end of the engine cab, breaking the glass, a piece of which penetrated and destroyed one of respondent's eyes. These several acts are charged...
To continue reading
Request your trial