Doyle v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1889
• Parties: DOYLE v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 Minn. 79

43 N.W. 787

DOYLEvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 22, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The plaintiff, an employe of a railroad company, having been injured while coupling cars, an agent sent by the company to obtain from the plaintiff a statement of the circumstances of the accident is not authorized by such agency to bind the company by his own declarations as to such circumstances. Proof of such declarations would be mere hearsay evidence.

2. The issue being as to whether the conduct of a railroad company not obviously dangerous and culpable (the use of partially worn rails for side tracks at a railway station) is negligence, proof may be made that the conduct in question is in accordance with the general custom of others (railroad companies) under like circumstances.

3. The question being whether the plaintiff's foot was caught by a splinter on the inside of a railroad track or rail, and as to whether the defendant is chargeable with negligence therefor, danger from such cause not being self-evident, it is competent for the defendant to show by experienced witnesses that such accidents have been unknown.

4. Liability for an accident from such a cause is not established, unless it is shown that the defendant had notice of the defect, or that in the exercise of reasonable care the defendant should have known it, or should have apprehended it, and that it was dangerous.

5. Evidence considered as not justifying the conclusion that the defendant should have apprehended danger from such a cause.

6. A servant who knows the condition of the appliances or place in connection with which he is employed, or who in the exercise of ordinary observation ought to have known, and who knows, or ought to have known, the danger to which he may be thereby exposed, is to be deemed, in general, to have taken upon himself the risk.

7. The plaintiff claiming to have been injured (run over) by reason of having his foot caught by a splinter in the rail while coupling cars, and complaining also that the freight on one of the cars (railroad iron) had been negligently suffered to project over the end of the car, held, that a recovery could not be had for the latter cause, the plaintiff not having been injured thereby.

Appeal from district court, Kandiyohi county; BROWN, Judge.

M. D. Grover and J. W. Mason, for appellant.

Benton, Plumley & Healy, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is for the recovery of damages for a personal injury suffered by the plaintiff while engaged in the discharge of his duty as a switchman in the defendant's service at one of its railroad stations. The accident occurred in connection with an attempt by the plaintiff to couple a slowly-moving platform or coal car to a caboose or box-car on a side track within the depot grounds. The coal-car was loaded with steel rails, which, in the course of transportation, and from the motion and shocks to which cars are ordinarily subjected, had so changed their proper position as to project beyond the end of the car. This was known to the plaintiff when he undertook to make the coupling. It is a common occurrence in the transportation of such freight. As the cars came together the projecting rails so covered the draw-head of the box-car that the plaintiff was unable to insert the coupling pin into its proper place, so as to make the coupling. The plaintiff was in a stooping posture, to avoid being caught between the ends of the projecting rails and the box-car. Being unable to effect the coupling, he attempted to get out from between the cars. In doing so, his foot, as the evidence discloses, was caught on the inside of the rail, and held fast, so that he could not extricate it, and the moving car ran over the leg. The theory of the plaintiff is that his foot was caught by a projecting silver or splinter of iron from the inside of the rail, and one of the principal grounds of negligence alleged in the complaint was that the defendant had placed a worn out and splintered rail in this side track, and had allowed the same to remain there. This was an important issue in the case; for, while there was no direct evidence of the existence of a splinter in the rail at the place of the accident, there was evidence that something inside the rail caught the plaintiff's foot and held it fast; that this side track was composed of iron (not steel) rails, somewhat worn; that such rails do become splintered from use, although steel rails do not; and that this side track was observed, some time after the accident, to be splintered inside the rails. On the other hand, there was evidence on the part of the defendant that splinters could not remain on the inside of the rail, for the reason that they would be cut off or pressed down by the flanges of the wheels, and that the inside of a rail wears smooth.

A few days after the accident the yard-master at this station, one Krukenberger, acting in behalf of the respondent, as may be assumed, obtained from the plaintiff a statement of the circumstances of the...