Collins v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 24 November 1882 |
| Parties | Mary Collins, Administratrix, etc., v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Nobles county, to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff's intestate. On the trial, before Severance, J., and a jury, when plaintiff rested, the action was dismissed on defendant's motion. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion.
Order affirmed.
Geo. W. Wilson and Emory Clark, for appellant.
The failure to have a light upon the engine was a failure of the company to provide proper appliances in operating the train. In this duty the servant represents the master. Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40; Wood v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N.Y. 195; Flike v. Boston & A. R. Co., 53 N.Y. 549; Ford v. Fitchburg R. Co., 110 Mass. 240; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. State, 33 Md. 542.
The servants of defendant engaged in operating the train were not fellow-servants of plaintiff's intestate. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 77 Ill. 391; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 Ill. 272; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217.
E. C. Palmer and Daniel Rohrer, for respondent, that plaintiff's intestate and those engaged in operating the train were fellow-servants, cited Gormley v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 72 Ind. 31; Foster v. Minn. Cent. Ry. Co., 14 Minn. 277, (360;) Gates v. Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 110; Coon v. Syracuse R. Co., 5 N.Y. 492; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Scheuring, 4 App. Cas. (Ill.) 533; Holden v. Fitchburg R. Co., 129 Mass. 268; Curran v. Merchants' Mfg. Co., 130 Mass. 374; Alabama & F. R. Co. v. Waller, 48 Ala. 459; Colorado C. R. Co. v. Ogden, 3 Col. 499; Shields v. Yonge, 15 Ga. 349; Beaulieu v. Portland Co., 48 Me. 291; Hanrathy v. N. C. Ry. Co., 46 Md. 280; Michigan C. R. Co. v. Smithson, 45 Mich. 212; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Thomas, 51 Miss. 637; Marshall v. Schricker, 63 Mo. 308; McAndrews v. Burns, 39 N. J. Law, 117; Sammon v. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 62 N.Y. 251; Lehigh Coal Co. v. Jones, 86 Pa. St. 432; Robinson v. H. & T. Cent. Ry. Co., 46 Tex. 540; Hard v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 32 Vt. 473; Columbus, etc., Ry. Co. v. Troesch, 57 Ill. 155; S. C., 68 Ill. 545; Mercer v. Jackson, 54 Ill. 397; Collier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116; Slattery v. Toledo & W. Ry. Co., 23 Ind. 81; Jones v. Mills, 126 Mass. 84; Wood on Master & Servant, §§ 416-435.
The action is by plaintiff, as administratrix, to recover for an injury to her intestate, Cornelius Collins. He was a laborer employed by defendant in repairing its track, and, at the time when hurt, was, with others, going along on the track upon a handcar after nightfall. A train coming along on the track ran upon the hand-car, and injured Collins so that he died. The complaint alleges that there was negligence in running the train; that there was no light in front of the locomotive; and that it had not what is called a head-light. The negligent omission to provide a head-light (or lantern) upon the locomotive, -- it appearing that a head-light is necessary to the safe running of a train in the dark, -- would have been the negligence of the defendant, as between it and its servants, for which it would have been liable to them for injuries caused by it. Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40, 1 N.W. 255. There was, however, no evidence that there was not a head-light on the locomotive; on the contrary, the evidence was full and satisfactory that it had a head-light. There was evidence enough that it was not lighted at the time. That was due to the neglect of those in charge of the train, -- fellow-servants of Collins, -- for whose negligence the defendant would not be liable to him or his representatives. Foster v. Minn. Cent. Ry. Co., 14 Minn. 277, (360.) The action was properly dismissed.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial