Castle v. Union Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20735.,20735.
• Citation: 139 Minn. 396,166 N.W. 767
• Parties: CASTLE v. UNION PAC. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

139 Minn. 396

166 N.W. 767

CASTLE

v.UNION PAC. R. CO.

No. 20735.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 15, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; E. F. Waite, Judge.

Action by Jennie Castle, administratrix, against the Union Pacific Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. New trial granted, unless plaintiff file a remittitur and on filing of the remittitur judgment as thereby modified to be affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In an action under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [U. S. Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665]) to recover for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate, the evidence is held sufficient to sustain the charge of negligence made the basis of the action, and to establish with sufficient certainty the fact that the death complained of was caused, thereby; the evidence takes that question beyond the field of conjecture and speculation.

The damages are held excessive, and a reduction thereof is ordered as a condition to denying a new trial. A. G. Ellick, of Omaha, Neb., and Edward P. Sanborn, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Geo. C. Stiles and D. C. Edwards, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant owns and operates a line of railroad in and through several different states, is a common carrier and engaged in interstate commerce. Plaintiff's intestate, who was her husband, was in the employ of defendant in its interstate service in the capacity of switchman in the yards of the company at Council Bluffs, in the state of Iowa. While engaged in the discharge of his duties on August 25, 1916, he was run over and killed by a switch engine around and in connection with which he was engaged in making up interstate trains. Plaintiff was subsequently duly commissioned administratrix of his estate, and brought this action to recover the damages caused by his death to his next of kin. She had a verdict in the court below, upon which, after a denial of defendant's motion for judgment or a new trial, judgment was duly rendered, from which defendant appealed.

The assignments of error present the general questions whether the evidence supports the verdict of negligence on the part of defendant, and whether the damages awarded by the jury are excessive.

The evidence, in respect to which there is no substantial dispute in the record, discloses the following facts: Decedent was a member of the night-switching crew, and upon the occasion in question entered upon the discharge of his duties at about 8 o'clock in the evening, though switching operations were not commenced for about half an hour later; he was killed within 15 or 20 minutes after engaging in the particular work. The crew consisted of the engineer and fireman, in charge of the engine, a foreman, decedent, and another switchman. The engine had been prepared for the service by a roundhouse hostler, and by him supplied with the necessary water and coal, and was supposed and understood to be in proper condition for use when turned over to the switching crew. The engine was equipped with the usual footboards extending across the front and rear ends thereof, upon which the switchman rode when moving about the yards in the switching operations, getting upon the same both when the engine was under movement and when it was stationary. One or two short switching movements had been made with the engine prior to the accident, and the third, which resulted in the death of decedent, occurred a little before nine o'clock. At that time decedent and the foreman were standing by one of the yard tracks, the foreman on one side and decedent on the other side, awaiting the approach of the engine, which each intended to board in the usual manner, namely, by stepping upon the footboard as the engine came up to them, and thereon riding to the end of that switching movement. The engine was running backward, pulling several cars to be switched upon a particular track, there to become a part of an interstate train being then made up. The foreman stepped upon the footboard in safety, but decedent in some way slipped and fell between the rails of the track, and was run over and killed.

It is claimed by plaintiff, and herein is found the charge of negligence upon which she relies for recovery, that defendant had carelessly and negligently permitted a quantity of coal, in particles ranging from dust to pieces of the size of a walnut, to be and remain upon the particular footboard, rendering the same dangerous and unsafe for use, in consequence of which decedent slipped when he stepped thereon, and was thus caused to lose his balance and fall upon the track. The allegations of the complaint in this respect were put in issue by the answer, but on the evidence presented the trial court and jury sustained plaintiff's view of the case, in doing which defendant contends that there was manifest error for the reasons: (1) That the evidence wholly fails to show how or in what manner the coal came upon the footboard, or to charge defendant with responsibility therefor; (2) that no witness testified that the presence of the particles of coal made the footboard dangerous to those required to use it; and (3) that whether decedent was...