Breske v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 11 August 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,153 - (210) |
| Parties | LEO BRESKE v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $35,000 for personal injuries. The substance of the complaint and answer is stated in the second paragraph of the opinion. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Kelly J., who, at the close of the evidence, directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
Federal safety appliance act -- movement of car.
Federal Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, as amended by Act of March 2, 1903, applies to a defective car or engine used in moving a box car from one switch track to another in defendant's yards, when the purpose of moving such car is to load it with merchandise for shipment into another state.
Evidence -- question for jury.
Evidence considered, and held to present a question for the jury as to whether it was defendant's intention at the time such car was moved to ship the merchandise, when loaded, into another state.
Barton & Kay, for appellant.
W. H Bremner, Eugene Bryan and George W. Seevers, for respondent.
Plaintiff, on July 10, 1910, was in the employ of defendant as an engine hostler in and about its roundhouse and yards at Watertown, South Dakota. He was directed by his superior to do certain switching work in the movement of certain cars on tracks in the defendant's yard. The object of this switching was to place on the roundhouse track a box car known as "M. & St. L. 9,641" for loading with scrap iron. This car was standing with a number of other cars on a track known as "No. 1," and was the tenth car on that track, counting from the end from which the engine operated. It was necessary to pull the ten cars from track No. 1 out on the main line, then back them on the roundhouse track, leave the box car there and put the other cars back on track No. 1. In doing the work it was discovered that the coupling apparatus on the car next to the box car was broken, and it was necessary to chain it to the box car. This defective car was the ninth car from the engine, and was known as After the cars had been pulled out on the main line and were about to be backed on the roundhouse track, plaintiff attempted to uncouple the box car from the defective car by releasing the chain, and was injured while so doing by the sudden movement of the cars, claimed to have been caused by the act of the engineer in starting without a signal.
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover damages for the injuries so received. The complaint charged as the negligence of defendant the use of a car with a defective coupler. It alleged that the engine and cars were being used in interstate commerce, and that it was the duty of defendant to have them equipped with automatic couplers. The answer alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant of plaintiff. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for defendant, on the ground that the car having a defective coupler was not being used in interstate commerce at the time of the accident, and that therefore the Federal safety appliance act and employer's liability act had no application. The court held, further, that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to show liability at common law. Plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The trial court was clearly right in holding that plaintiff's case depended wholly upon the Federal statute. The complaint cannot be construed as containing sufficient allegations of negligence in using defective cars, irrespective of the statute.
2. Do the acts of Congress in question apply to this case? These acts are the safety appliance act of 1893, as amended in 1903, and the employer's liability law (Act April 22, 1908, 35 St. 65, c. 149, [U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1171]). If they apply to this case, the trial court was in error in directing a verdict; if they do not apply, the action of the court was correct, as it is clear that the accident was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant of plaintiff, for which defendant is not liable, in the absence of a statute changing the common-law rule.
The safety appliance act provides in substance that it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its lines any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars. The employer's liability law removes the defenses of assumption of risk and fellow servant, when a servant is injured by reason of a violation by the carrier of the safety appliance act.
Admittedly defendant was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. The only question is whether the car which had the defective coupler was being used in moving interstate traffic. The facts in relation to this car and the other cars, so far as material, are as follows: C. & A. car No 24,217, the car which had the defective coupler, came from Gary, Indiana, to Watertown, loaded with rails consigned to defendant. It reached Watertown July 8, 1910, and was unloaded either the day before or on the day of the accident. On August 2 it went to Minneapolis as an empty car. M. & St. L. car No. 9,641, the car that was being switched onto the roundhouse track for...
To continue reading
Request your trial