Crosby v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 04 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | 29,039,29,040 |
| Citation | 245 N.W. 31,187 Minn. 263 |
| Parties | W. D. AND DALE CROSBY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Two actions in the district court for Swift county, consolidated for trial and heard together on appeal, one by Dale Crosby to recover damages for injuries sustained by him when an auto which he was driving came into collision with one of defendant's trains at a crossing; and the other action by W. D. Crosby as father, on behalf of his minor son Emmett who was riding with Dale, to recover damages for injuries sustained by Emmett. The cases were heard before Baker, J and a jury. After due deliberation the jury was discharged because of its failure to agree upon a verdict. Defendant thereupon moved for judgment in its favor in each case. The motions were granted, and plaintiffs took separate appeals from the judgments entered pursuant thereto. Affirmed.
Railroad -- crossing -- operation thereon.
1. It is not negligence in itself for a railroad company to allow a train of cars to stand on a highway crossing or to move thereon.
Railroad -- crossing -- signals.
2. Statutory signals for trains approaching a highway crossing are solely for the benefit of travelers on the highway so as to warn them of approaching trains. They are immaterial when and where the train is actually upon and occupying the crossing when the traveler arrives. Such signals and warnings at such crossings are not for the purpose of preventing automobile drivers from running into the side of the train.
Railroad -- operation -- care in general.
3. A railroad must take such precaution as prudent management with respect to public safety requires, though such precaution may be in addition to the requirement of the statute or though there may be no statute upon the subject; but the record here fails to present such a case.
John I. Davis and Frank J. Zima, for appellants.
Frank E. Wright, A. L. Janes, Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause & Faegre, Paul J. McGough, and Bradshaw Mintener, for respondent.
Each plaintiff appealed from a judgment entered pursuant to defendant's motion in each case for judgment notwithstanding a disagreement of the jury.
On August 28, 1930, at about 9:45 p.m. Dale Crosby drove an automobile from the north on state highway No. 66 going toward and near the village of Appleton. He was 21 years old. His 15-year old brother Emmett was riding with him. Just north of the village defendant's track intersects this highway. There is a grade crossing. In a collision with one of defendant's trains at this crossing the Crosby boys were injured. Dale Crosby seeks to recover damages for his injuries. Emmett Crosby, being a minor, his father seeks to recover damages for him. There are separate actions.
This highway leads to the crossing straight from the north. It is practically level and graveled to a width of 24 feet. The crossing is protected by the usual statutory signs. An electric street light 24 feet above the ground, four feet east of the highway and 65 feet south of the center of the railroad track, was burning.
The crossing is planked to a width of 40 feet. In addition to the large crossing sign at the crossing, there is a warning sign 300 feet to the north. These two young men were familiar with the crossing. They had lived on a farm about two miles to the northwest. They had traveled over this crossing in the daytime on the day of the accident. As they approached the crossing at the time here involved a freight train was slowly moving upon the crossing. It consisted of an engine, one box-car, and ten gondola cars. It was moving in a westerly direction at the rate of three or four miles per hour. Just previously it had been standing for three or four minutes and had moved but 25 to 30 feet when the accident happened. The engine was headed east and had a 250 candle-power light facing east. It was moving backward; its front end was coupled to the box-car, and east of the box-car were the gondola cars. In making the movement the engine was going backward.
The crossing has a fairly open view as one comes from the north on the highway. Dale Crosby drove his automobile into the eighth car from the engine, resulting in injury to himself and his brother.
1. Subject to legislative restriction, which is not here violated, it is not negligence in itself for a railroad company to allow a train of cars to stand on a highway crossing or to move thereon. Wood v. Northern Alabama Ry. Co. 22 Ala.App. 513, 117 So. 495; Cleveland, C.C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Gillespie, Ind.App. , 173 N.E. 708, 713; Philadelphia & R.R. Co. v. Dillon, 31 Del. 247, 114 A. 62, 15 A.L.R. 894; St. L.S.F. Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 216 Ala. 613, 114 So. 215, 56 A.L.R. 1110; G.M. & N.R. Co. v. Holifield, 152 Miss. 674, 120 So. 750; Hendley v. C. & N.W. Ry. Co. 198 Wis. 569, 225 N.W. 205; Jacobson v. N.Y.S. & W.R. Co. 87 N.J.L. 378, 94 A. 577; Gage v. B. & M.R. Co. 77 N.H. 289, 90 A. 855, L.R.A. 1915A, 363; Orton v. Pa. R. Co. (C.C.A.) 7 F.2d 36; Morris v. Atlantic C.R. Co. 100 N.J.L. 328, 126 A. 295; Jones v. A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. 129 Kan. 314, 282 P. 593; Gilman v. Central Vt. Ry. 93 Vt. 340, 107 A. 122, 16 A.L.R. 1102; Trask v. B. & M.R. Co. 219 Mass. 410, 106 N.E. 1022; Witherly v. B. & A.R. Co. 131 Me. 4, 158 A. 362.
Defendant was carrying on a legitimate business in a lawful manner. Reasonable operation of its business does not require a light on the side of each or any of the cars of a standing or moving train. Neither is it reasonable to expect or require a railroad company to have men with lanterns on the ground when trains pass in the night.
2. Statutory signals for trains approaching a highway crossing are solely for the benefit of travelers on the highway so as to warn them of approaching trains. They are immaterial when and where, as here, the train is actually upon and occupying the crossing when the traveler arrives. Schmidt v. C. & N.W. Ry. Co. 191 Wis. 184, 210 N.W. 370; McGlauflin v. B. & M.R. Co. 230 Mass. 431, 119 N.E. 955, L.R.A 1918E, 790; Nadasky v. Public Service R. Co. 97 N.J.L. 400, 117 A. 478; Keel v. Seaboard A.L. Ry. 122 S.C. 17, 114 S.E. 761; Southern Ry. Co. v. Simpson, 149 Tenn. 458, 261 S.W. 677; Yardley v. Rutland R. Co. 103 Vt. 182, 153 A. 195; Jones v. A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. 129 Kan. 314, 282 P. 593; G.M. & N.R. Co. v. Holifield, 152 Miss. 674, 120 So. 750. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial