Butler v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Co.

Decision Date16 November 1894
Docket NumberNo. 8966.,8966.
Citation59 Minn. 135
PartiesMYRON J. BUTLER <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL & DULUTH RAILROAD CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Otis, J., made March 8, 1894, granting plaintiff, Myron J. Butler, a new trial after verdict against him.

The plaintiff, a carpenter sixty four years old living at Lake Shore station on defendant's railroad, took a passenger train at half past two o'clock in the afternoon December 14, 1892, at White Bear Lake to ride to his home station a half mile distant. He bought no ticket. The company did not sell tickets to that station. He paid no fare. He did not see the conductor while on the train. This train did not ordinarily stop at Lake Shore. It did so only in case the engineer was signalled to stop by the station agent or by the conductor on the train. The plaintiff told a brakeman on the train that he desired to get off at Lake Shore and supposed he would give the signal and that the train would stop. The train slowed down somewhat as it approached the station, but did not stop. Plaintiff was unincumbered by bundle, umbrella or grip sack and went upon the front platform of the passenger car and down onto the last step ready to alight. But when the train passed the station without stopping, he was either jerked off or he jumped off at a point about a hundred feet beyond the station and fell on the frozen ground, and suffered a compound comminuted fracture and dislocation of both bones of the left forearm. He brought this action to recover damages. Defendant answered denying negligence on the part of its servants and alleging contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. After the evidence was submitted the Judge charged the jury as follows:

The plaintiff claims that he boarded the train and notified the brakeman in charge that he desired to get off at Lake Shore station. That the brakeman gave him to understand that the train would be stopped. That as the train approached the station it began to slow up as if for the purpose of stopping, and that thereupon he went upon the platform of the car and stepped upon the first or second step for the purpose of getting off as soon as the train came to a stop, knowing that under the circumstances it would halt but a moment. That while in this position the train came nearly to a standstill, and then without fully stopping, was started ahead again with a violent jerk or motion, which threw the plaintiff down or caused him to lose his balance. That he clung to the railing for a time, but seeing that the train was increasing its speed, and being unable to regain his footing upon the steps, dropped himself from the car, and thus received the injury of which he complains.

The defendant on the other hand claims that the plaintiff failed to notify those in charge that he desired to stop at Lake Shore station. That they received no notice of his intention. That in approaching this station they did decrease the speed of the train some, but only sufficient to ascertain whether there was any signal to stop. That before reaching the platform, seeing no signal to stop, the train increased its motion, and was going at the rate of ten miles an hour, and that this speed was increased until the time the plaintiff dropped from the car. That the plaintiff took the chances of dropping or throwing himself from this train while it was going at the rate of at least ten miles an hour; and that under any circumstances he attempted to get off while it was in motion, and that being so, claims, as is the law, that he cannot recover.

If this accident occurred while the plaintiff was in the act of getting off the car while it was in motion, then he cannot recover.

The plaintiff excepted to the last paragraph of this charge. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial for errors of law occurring on the trial and excepted to by him. The court, deeming the instruction so excepted to, erroneous and that it should have been left to the jury to say whether alighting from the car while in motion was under the circumstances a negligent act, ordered a new trial. From this order defendant appeals.

J. D. Armstrong and Bunn & Hadley, for appellant.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

F. G. B. Woodruff, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's servants in the management of a train upon which plaintiff was a passenger.

The plaintiff entered the train at White Bear station, for the purpose of going to Lake Shore, a half mile distant, which was merely a flag or signal station.

The plaintiff's testimony tended to prove that he notified the brakeman that he desired to get off at Lake Shore station; that the brakeman gave him to understand that the train would be stopped to let him off; that, as the train approached the station, it began to slow up as if for the purpose of stopping; that thereupon plaintiff went out upon the platform of the car, and stepped down upon the lower step for the purpose of getting off as soon as the train stopped; that, while he stood in this position, the train came almost to a standstill, and then, without stopping, was started ahead again with a violent jerk, which caused plaintiff to lose his balance, and threw him partially down; that he clung to the railing, with one foot on the step, but seeing that the train was increasing its speed, and being unable to regain his footing on the steps, he let go, and dropped himself upon the ground, and sustained the injuries complained of; that the point at which he was thrown down by the jerk was about fifty feet past the depot; that from that point to where he let go was about one hundred feet; that "after he struck the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Butler v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1894
    ... ... Butler against the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company for personal injuries caused by defendant's negligence, in which there was a verdict for defendant. From an order granting a new ... ...

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