Bohm v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24178.,24178. |
| Citation | 200 N.W. 804,161 Minn. 74 |
| Parties | BOHM v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.
Action by Alden W. Bohm against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
George C. Stiles, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb and A. C. Erdall, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. The plaintiff was the rear brakeman on a freight train of the defendant running from Mason City, Iowa, to Minneapolis in this state. The train consisted of 35 cars with a caboose at the rear, all equipped with air brakes operated from the engine by the engineer. Each car was provided with a rod extending from the air piston underneath the car to the side of the car near the center by means of which air could be let out and the brakes released. When the control lever operated by the engineer failed to release the brakes on a car, as occasionally happened, they were released by means of this rod. The trainmen called this "bleeding" the car or "bleeding" the brakes. When the train left Austin, and while it was moving slowly, plaintiff heard the brakes "squealing," as he termed it, on the second car in front of the caboose, and saw that they were sticking. He went to the side of the car and released them by means of the rod above mentioned. About two miles from Austin the train stopped at a railroad crossing. Plaintiff and the conductor were in the caboose. When the train started again they heard brakes "squealing" and the conductor directed plaintiff to "bleed" those brakes. It was in the night, and dark and cloudy. Plaintiff hung his lantern on his arm, climbed up the ladder to the top of the first car, passed over that to the top of the second car, and found that the noise came from the brakes of the second car. He examined the hand brake and found that the trouble was not caused by that. He then started down the ladder at the side of the front end of the car for the purpose of "bleeding" the brake. As he descended, he looked down and thought he saw a dark bank which he took to be the ground. The train was moving very slowly. Without lowering his lantern to see what was beneath him, he stepped off the ladder, fell through a bridge over which the car was then passing, and sustained serious injuries.
The action was brought under the federal Safety Appliance Act (U. S. Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.). The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding a verdict for the plaintiff. The sole question presented is whether the defective brake was the proximate cause of the injury within the purview of the federal act.
The courts have frequently been called upon to determine similar questions; and the line which separates the class of cases in which the accident is proximately attributable to the defect in the appliance from the class of cases in which it is not proximately attributable thereto has been pointed out quite clearly.
In Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 33 S. Ct. 840, 57 L. Ed. 1204, the pin lifter failed to work and a switchman, while attempting to uncouple the cars by hand, slipped and his foot was caught in an unblocked frog. He was held to be within the protection of the act.
In Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. v. Layton, 243 U. S. 617, 37 S. Ct. 456, 61 L. Ed. 931, an attempt was made to couple onto a string of five cars. The automatic coupler failed to work and the impact drove the cars against a standing train with such force that a brakeman was thrown from the top of them. The defective coupler was held to be a proximate cause of the accident.
In M. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Gotschall, 244 U. S. 66, 37 S. Ct. 598, 61 L. Ed. 995, the train separated because a coupler opened. This caused the setting of the brakes and a sudden jerk which threw a brakeman off the train and under the wheels. The defective coupler was again held, in effect, to be a proximate cause of the accident.
In Davis v. Wolfe, 263 U. S. 239, 44 S. Ct. 64, 68 L. Ed. 284, the conductor was standing on the sill step at the side of a box car holding on a grabiron which was loose and defective. An unexpected jerk of the car and a movement of the loose grabiron caused him to fall. The verdict was sustained. The court reviewed the prior cases, and pointed out the distinction between those in which the accident was proximately attributable to the use of a defective appliance and those in which it was not.
In Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Eisenhart (C. C. A.) 280 F. 271, two cars cut from a train were "kicked" to a siding. The conductor was riding on them for the purpose of stopping them at the proper place on the siding. Owing to a defective coupler the train parted and another string of cars followed down the siding and collided with the car on which the conductor was riding throwing him to the ground. The court reviewed the cases and held that the failure to comply with the safety appliance law was the proximate cause of the accident.
In Burho v. M. & St. L. Ry. Co., 121 Minn. 326, 141 N. W. 300, the coupler was defective and a brakeman, attempting to open the knuckle by hand while the train was moving, stumbled and fell. He was held to be within the protection of the act.
In Clapper v. Dickinson, 137 Minn. 415, 163 N. W. 752, a car loaded with pig iron was placed on a sidetrack and held in position by a block of wood under the wheels as the track was on a grade. A box car was "kicked" onto the track to couple to the pig iron car. The coupling did not make, but the impact moved the pig iron car so that the block under the wheels fell out, a fact not known to the switchman. The box car started down the grade, but was brought to a stop and the switchman placed a block of wood under the wheels of this car. As he stepped away the pig iron car struck this car with such force that it ran over him. He was held to be within the rule applied in the Layton Case, supra.
In Schendel v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. (Minn.) 198 N. W. 450, a car having a defective coupler was attached to the train by a chain. It was pulled onto a side track and while the brakeman and conductor were trying to unfasten the chain the brakeman was crushed by a sudden movement of the train. It was held that the defective coupler had a causal relation to the accident.
In St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U. S. 243, 35 S. Ct. 785, 59 L. Ed. 1291, a loaded freight car from which the coupler and drawbar had been pulled out stood on a side track. A switch engine ran into it in the night, and in the absence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial