Benedict v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.

Decision Date16 May 1902
Citation86 Minn. 224,90 N.W. 360
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesBENEDICT v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Charles M. Pond, Judge.

Action by Minnie Benedict, administratrix of George Benedict, against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. While it is the absolute duty of a railway carrier of passengers to provide a safe and secure place for its patrons to ride within its cars, when such duty is performed the passenger has no right to voluntarily extend his person beyond the line of a moving car, or ride upon its platform; and if he does so, and injury follows, no recovery can be had therefor.

2. Where a carrier of passengers by steam permits its cars to be overcrowded, and requires its passengers to ride on the platforms, it cannot excuse itself for injuries from such cause, but if a passenger, while riding on the platform, negligently extends his person beyond the car line from curiosity, his act in that respect must be regarded as negligent.

3. A youth of 16 years of age, traveling alone, cannot be held, merely on account of his immature years, to have been incapable in law of exercising sufficient discretion and judgment to avoid incurring the risk of a voluntary exposure of his person beyond the sides of a moving train.

4. In the review of a complaint upon general demurrer, held, that certain facts and conditions set forth therein do not excuse the conduct of an injured party, or absolve him from contributory negligence, in protruding his head beyond the sides of a moving train on which he was a passenger. Thomas Canty, for appellant.

Albert E. Clarke, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Plaintiff, as administratrix, seeks to recover for the death of her son, occurring through the alleged negligence of defendant, who demurs to the complaint upon the ground that it does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, from which order plaintiff appeals.

The essential facts in the complaint are as follows: During the summer season of 1901 defendant operated trains between Minneapolis and points of Lake Minnetonka. Defendant's passenger station is near the center of the city, and its tracks extend four miles westerly therefrom within the corporate limits. Two-fifths of a mile west of the depot its railroad passes under a bridge on Lyndale avenue. It is claimed that the defendant negligently maintains its tracks so close to the iron posts which support this bridge that the sides of its cars pass within 10 inches of the same. At this time defendant was running suburban trains, and transporting passengers thereon between the city and Lake Minnetonka in each direction, not only for ordinary purposes, but upon the occasion of picnics and excursions, when the cars would be greatly ‘overcrowded, so that their doors and windows had to be open, and passengers were required to ride upon the platforms and steps at the end of the cars.’ That the yards of defendant for a mile west of the depot had switches and side tracks adjacent to its main tracks, and at various points within this distance such tracks were crossed by street bridges overhead, supported by iron posts erected in the yard at the sides of the tracks. That these bridges resemble each other, and look alike to passengers. That the depot is east of and very close to one of the bridges, so that when the trains arrive they must stop partly under it for passengers to alight. That the conductors and brakemen of the train announce the stations as the trains slow up and stop at various points under the bridges, ‘when the passengers frequently and usually lean out from the platforms of the cars and look ahead to see if their train has arrived at its destination, which is their usual and customary habit’ and known to defendant. On the 30th of June, 1901, plaintiff's intestate, a minor, of the age of 16 years, was a passenger on one of these trains coming to the city from Lake Minnetonka. That this train was overcrowded with passengers returning from a picnic. That it was excessively hot. That the car was greatly overcrowded, and many drunken and disorderly persons were riding thereon, whereby intestate was compelled to stand upon the platform of his car. The train suddenly slowed up near the Lyndale avenue bridge, when he, ‘with the consent of the defendant, and without any warning of the danger’ (or knowledge of the bridge), ‘leaned out slightly, and looked ahead, to see if it was arriving or had arrived at its destination, when his head immediately came into collision with one of the iron posts referred to, and he received the injuries from which he died.’ The position of the defendant in support of the order of the trial court is that intestate, by extending his head beyong the line of the car while in motion, committed an act of negligence, which was the proximate cause of his injury, and therefore precludes recovery in this action.

The law undoubtedly enjoins upon the railway carrier of passengers extraordinary diligence. This rule is intended, for reasons of public policy, to secure their safe carriage, so far as human skill and foresight can accomplish that result. Smith v. Railway Co., 32 Minn. 1, 18 N. W. 827,50 Am. Rep. 550. However, railways must construct and arrange their tracks and yards to attain practical purposes in the operation of their roads. They have been permitted, without restraint from police regulation, to build tracks with switches, when necessary, in close proximity to each other. This course is unavoidable in city yards, where the right of eminent domain, in view of public as well as private interests, have restricted the appropriation of land for railroad uses. A common incident of city yards are overhead bridges, with posts to sustain them, as well as adjacent tracks upon which trains are continually passing so near to each other that a slight extension of the human body beyond the sides of a car is fraught with danger to life and limb. These conditions have always existed. They are customary, and to a large extent indispensable; hence the high degree of duty to patrons exacted of carriers of passengers has been generally regarded as fulfilled with reference to outside arrangements at such places where a safe and secure place has been provided within its cars for their occupation. Having done this, the carrier is not required, in maintaining adjoining structures, to guard against the anticipated carelessness of those who are in no danger so long as they remain in the place of safety which the carrier has furnished. The customary methods of constructing tracks, building bridges, and running trains in railroad yards renders any exposure of a person beyond the car line imminently hazardous; hence there must arise a presumption in behalf of the carrier, when injury arises from such exposure, that the conduct of its business in this respect is not negligent, and imposes upon the injured party the burden of showing that it was otherwise in any particular case. While, as a general rule, it may be said that railroads can arrange structures adjoining their tracks to accomplish practical ends, even...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT