Davis v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 10 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,914 - (57) |
| Citation | 159 N.W. 802,134 Minn. 369 |
| Parties | T. D. DAVIS v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $25,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J., who at the close of plaintiff's testimony denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and at the close of the trial denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, and a jury which returned a verdict for $8,830. Defendant's motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Safety Appliance Act -- proof of violation -- automatic couplers.
A violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act may be established by proof that repeated efforts to work the lever of an automatic coupler, in the manner it is designed to be worked by switchmen in railroad operations, failed to lift the coupling pin.
W. H Bremner and F. M. Miner, for appellant.
Barton & Kay, for respondent.
The only question on this appeal is: Does the evidence sustain the finding of the jury that the car, which plaintiff attempted to uncouple when injured, was equipped with a defective coupler in violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act?
Plaintiff was in the service of defendant as a switchman in its yards at Des Moines, Iowa, and had been engaged in that work for many years previous to June 3, 1915. In the early forenoon of that day he, with a crew, was moving four cars in the yard. It is admitted that defendant was then engaged in transporting interstate commerce and plaintiff was assisting therein. The locomotive was behind, pushing the cars and plaintiff's duty was to cut off the two cars in front when a suitable momentum was reached, so as to let them run in on a side track, the switch of which was being held open by another switchman. In this operation it was necessary to uncouple while the train was in motion. It was moving at the rate of from four to six miles an hour when plaintiff started to work the coupling lever. He was on the right hand side of the train as it was moving and the lever was upon the front end of the rear car of the two between which the cut was to be made. The lever falls short several inches of extending to the side of the car, so it is necessary to reach in between the cars in working it. The lever on this particular car was operated by pushing or bearing down on it. Plaintiff claims that, as he was walking or running along the train, he took hold of the lever with his left hand and made several futile attempts to work it, but that he was unable to thereby lift the coupling pin, and he then went in between to lift it by hand. In so doing he stumbled and fell, resulting in the loss of an arm.
Defendant produced three witnesses, who examined this coupler within 30 minutes after the accident, and they all declare that no defect could be detected in any of its parts, and that it operated properly when the lever was pressed. It is contended that this evidence, when considered with the physical fact that a simple mechanical contrivance like this coupler, shown to be in good condition and workable a short time after the accident, must have been in the same state at the time thereof, and conclusively established that there was no violation of the Safety Appliance Act, hence defendant should have judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Of course the burden was upon plaintiff to prove the alleged negligence of defendant by showing that the car was not equipped with such a coupler as is required by the statute mentioned, and that this violation of law proximately caused his injury. This he claims to have done by the proof that repeated efforts to push, press or bear down on the lever...
To continue reading
Request your trial