Clark v. N. Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1891
• Citation: 47 Minn. 380,50 N.W. 365
• Parties: CLARK v NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 380

50 N.W. 365

CLARKvNORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 25, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Common prudence requires that a person walking across a railroad track at a crossing should look for approaching trains before going upon the track, and his failure to do so, when unexcused by any other fact than that the view was obstructed until he came within six feet of the track, is negligence.

Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; HOLLAND, Judge.

Action by John G. Clark against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Wetherby, True & Warner, for appellant.

Tilden R. Selmes, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

The dismissal of the action on the case presented on the part of the plaintiff was justified for the reason that by his own showing he was chargeable with contributory negligence. The injury complained of was caused by his being struck by a snow-plow followed by a locomotive running south, as he was crossing the railroad track at a place which may be deemed to have been recognized by the defendant as a licensed crossing place over its road, and where, as may be assumed, the company was bound to exercise care to avoid injury to those who might travel there. It may be assumed that the defendant did not exercise the care required of it, in that no signal of the approaching engine and snow-plow was given. The plaintiff was a young man, 22 years of age, with unimpaired faculties. He was walking east on the traveled way or road, in the day-time. Although the wind was blowing, with snow in the air, he could see 35 or 40 rods. He was familiar with the locality, knew he was approaching the railroad crossing, and was expecting that a train might pass coming from the south. The railroad runs in a straight line north and south, and the track is elevated some two feet above the surrounding country. The view of the railroad in both directions was obstructed by trees as one approached it traveling east, until the fence was passed which inclosed the railroad right of way, the distance of which from the track is not certainly shown, but appears to have been more than 20 and not more than 50 feet from the track. We will also make the further assumption, most favorable to the claim of the plaintiff, that, even after he came within the inclosing fence, his view of the track was so far obstructed that he could not have seen the approaching engine....