Bolinger v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1887 |
| Parties | FREDERICK BOLINGER, Administrator, <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL & DULUTH RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Jas. Smith, Jr., J. J. Egan, and I. V. D. Heard, for appellant.
John D. O'Brien and Otto Kueffner, for respondent.
The deceased was fatally injured on the evening of Christmas, 1884, by defendant's cars, which came in collision with the sleigh in which he was riding at the place where the tracks of the company cross Third street, in the city of St. Paul. The accident is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, particularly in running its cars at a dangerous rate of speed, and in failing to give any proper signal or warning of their approach at the crossing. The evidence tended to show that the cars in question were box cars, which were being backed or pushed across the street at the time; that they were running at a higher rate of speed than allowed by the city ordinance; that it was after dark, being past 6 o'clock in the evening; that the street was in use as one of the thoroughfares of the city; that there was then no watchman or flag-man at the crossing; and that the driver of the vehicle saw or heard no signal, and had no notice of the approach of the cars in time to escape.
The evidence was undoubtedly sufficient to sustain a finding of negligence on defendant's part by the jury. When the situation at the crossing, and the manner of running the train, the number and duties of the employes in charge, the rate of speed, the extent of travel upon the street, and the opportunity for observation, were shown, it was peculiarly for the jury to determine whether the rate of speed was reasonable, and the defendant's management of the train otherwise reasonably prudent. Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 32 Minn. 214, (20 N. W. Rep. 93.)
It was also for the jury to determine whether a flag-man or other precautions not used were necessary for the safety of travellers at the particular time and place, and how far any negligence which might rightfully be imputed to the defendant in any of the particulars we have mentioned was the efficient cause of the accident. Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 103, 107, 108, (9 N. W. Rep. 575;) Kelly v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 1, (11 N. W. Rep. 67.)
2. It is not so clear upon the evidence that there may not have been contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the sleigh; but the testimony in plaintiff's behalf presented a case for the jury. The jury would consider to what extent the position of the freighthouse, or cars standing on the street, as shown by some of the testimony, obscured the vision of the parties in the sleigh as they were approaching the track, in connection with other facts above referred to, and also the evidence of the driver, and those with him, that they looked and listened for the cars, and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial