Connelly v. Minneapolis E. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1887
• Citation: 35 N.W. 582,38 Minn. 80
• Parties: CONNELLY v MINNEAPOLIS E. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 80

35 N.W. 582

CONNELLYvMINNEAPOLIS E. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 27, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A railroad company is not responsible to its section or track men for the negligence of the engineer or brakeman of a train, they being fellow-servants.¹

A complaint charging the company only with negligence in the movement of a particular train without warning, does not involve, as a cause of action, the neglect of the company to establish general regulations for the conduct of its servants in such cases.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Merrick & Merrick, for Connelly, appellant.

W. H. Norris, for Minneapolis E. Ry. Co., respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

We are of the opinion that the court properly dismissed the action for the insufficiency of the plaintiff's case.

The plaintiff's intestate was one of the section or track men of the defendant, and employed upon its tracks used for transfer and switching purposes at Minneapolis. From the depot two tracks of the defendant (coming together at a switch at that point) extend upon a curve in a south-easterly direction to and beyond the place of the accident. One of these may be called the “main” track and the other the “side” or “mile” track. A short time before the accident, a train of freight cars of considerable length had been run on the main track, and left standing there, extending from near the place of the accident up towards the depot. While these cars were standing there, the deceased, with his fellow-laborers, commenced the work of straightening a rail on the same track, and within less than 30 feet of the southerly or rear end of the train. While this was being done, the engine which did the business of switching and transferring cars about these premises, drew up several other cars over the side track, past the place of the accident, to the depot switch, and shoved them back on the main track, bringing them forcibly in contact with the cars already standing there, for the purpose of bunting the whole train backward, so that the cars should clear the switch. Just at this time the deceased stepped from the point where he was working still nearer the rear end of the train, and, turning his back to it, stood upon the track for the purpose of taking a sight at the rail to see if it was straight. In this position he was struck in the back by the train as it was suddenly forced backward as above stated. From the injuries thus received he died. The operations of the engine at the depot switch, at the other end of the train, could not be seen from the place where these men were working. There were several other tracks of other railroads in this immediate vicinity, and so many engine bells were ringing that these workmen could not have heard or distinguished the bell of this engine if it had been ringing, nor, because of the noise...