Cramer v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Decision Date | 14 July 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,825 - (181) |
| Citation | 158 N.W. 796,134 Minn. 61 |
| Parties | LEO J. CRAMER v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $50,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant as switchman. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J and a jury which returned a verdict for $10,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
New trial -- verdict not contrary to evidence.
1. In an action for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff, a switchman in the employ of defendant in interstate commerce the evidence is considered and held not so clearly and palpably against the verdict as to justify the reversal of an order denying a new trial.
Damages not excessive.
2. The damages are not excessive.
Federal Safety Appliance Act -- liability of master.
3. The duty of an interstate railroad company to supply and equip its cars with safe and secure handholds, as required by the Federal Safety Appliance Act, is absolute, and a failure to comply with the act renders the company liable to an employee who suffers injury in consequence of the failure.
No error.
4. The record presents no reversible error.
F. W. Root and Nelson J. Wilcox, for appellant.
Samuel A. Anderson and A. F. Storey, for respondent.
Action to recover for personal injuries, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.
The action is founded on the Federal Employer's Liability Act, and the negligence relied upon, the alleged failure of respondent to comply with the Federal Safety Appliance Act. The facts are as follows:
On March 26, 1914, plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a switchman in its yards at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The duties performed by him brought him within the protection of the Federal statute as an interstate employee. At the time of his injury, at 9:30 in the evening, he was engaged with other members of his crew in "breaking up" and switching about the yard a train of cars then recently brought in from Chicago. While descending from a box car which he was riding to destination, he was thrown to the ground by reason of the absence of the lower rung of the car ladder, which he was using in climbing down from the top of the car. He struck on one of the rails of the tracks, and claims to have received serious injury to the end of his spine and to his back. He was a young man 27 years of age, and weighed at the time about 220 pounds. He described the accident in the following language:
"Well I was coming down, climbing down the ladder, hand over hand, and when I got to the bottom * * * there was no rung there, nothing there to catch me, and I let go with my left hand and my left foot swung around the corner of the car, and I hung on as long as I could * * * and I fell on the rail on my back in kind of sitting position."
The jury found the facts in harmony with plaintiff's claims, and awarded him the sum of $10,000 and the trial court approved the verdict by denying a new trial.
The principal question on this appeal is whether the verdict is manifestly unsupported by the evidence. Other points are made by appellant, and they will be considered in their order.
1. Our consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is clear that plaintiff fell from the car in the manner stated by him and because of the absence of a rung in the car ladder. He was soon thereafter assisted to a switch shanty by a fellow switchman, and later was removed to a hospital and placed in charge of defendant's physician. The character and extent of the injuries received by him are not so clear, but it cannot be held as a matter of law that he was not injured at all. It is clear therefore that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was properly denied. And, as we read the evidence, the new trial asked for was also properly denied, at least the case is not brought within the rule guiding us in such cases, that is, the evidence is not manifestly and palpably against the verdict. That plaintiff received some sort of an injury to his back and spine seems clear enough. The physician called by plaintiff on the trial, and who had made thorough examination of plaintiff to discover wherein he was injured, characterized the result of plaintiff's fall from the car as an injury to the spinal column and the nerves thereof; that plaintiff suffered a hemorrhage into the canal of the spine, into the lower part of the canal, affecting the nerve roots and making up what he termed cauda equina. Other complications arose from this condition affecting the limbs, bowels and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial