Bennett v. Great N. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1911 |
| Citation | 115 Minn. 128,131 N.W. 1066 |
| Parties | BENNETT v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; William A. Cant, Judge.
Action by Minard Bennett against the Great Northern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff was a fireman on a switch engine in the yards at the ore docks of defendant's railroad in the city of Superior, Wis., and was injured by an ore train which was alleged to be without proper signal lights, and commenced an action for damages in the district court of Minnesota, and invoked the rule of comparative negligence by pleading the Wisconsin statute. Defendant answered that the injury occurred while it was engaged in interstate commerce, which fact was developed and proved at the trial. The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and submitted the case to the jury under the rule of the common law, and denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held, it does not conclusively appear from the evidence that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, nor that he assumed the risks connected with the work in which he was engaged.
The defendant was not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, conceding that the common law of Wisconsin was not applicable to the case.
The state court was not deprived of jurisdiction when it appeared at the trial that the injury occurred while the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce. Baldwin & Baldwin and Ernest C. Carman, for appellant.
Samuel A. Anderson and Warner E. Whipple, for respondent.
Action commenced in St. Louis county to recover damages for injuries accurring in the state of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that the defendant owned and operated a railway in the city of Superior, state of Wisconsin; that plaintiff was in the employ of the company as a fireman on a switch engine which operated in the yards; that it was the custom of the company to display lights from the first car when engaged in backing ore cars to its ore dock in the nighttime; and that it was negligent in failing to maintain lights on a certain ore train, by reason of which the plaintiff, while crossing the track, was struck down and injured. Chapter 254, Laws Wis. 1907, and also chapter 448, Laws Wis. 1903, were pleaded, known as the ‘Wisconsin employer's liability statute,’ under which recovery can be had only when the negligence of the master is greater than that of the injured party.
The defendant answered that it was organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota and engaged in operating railroads in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states, and that the car and train upon which plaintiff was alleged to have been injured was being operated by defendant in the due course of interstate transportation.
After plaintiff rested, defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that no negligence of defendant had been proven, that plaintiff was proven guilty of contributory negligence, that the evidence conclusively showed that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce, that the federal employer's liability act superseded the Wisconsin statute, and on the ground that the state court had no jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and at the close of the evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict upon the grounds above stated, with the additional ground that plaintiff had assumed the risk....
To continue reading
Request your trial