Eldridge v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company
| Citation | 20 N.W. 151,32 Minn. 253 |
| Parties | John T. Eldridge v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1884 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action brought in the district court for Waseca county, to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while a passenger in a car of defendant which was derailed. At the trial before Buckham, J., and a jury, the defendant had a verdict. Plaintiff moved for a new trial upon the following grounds, viz.: (1) Newly-discovered evidence, (2) that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, and (3) error in law occurring at the trial, and appeals from an order denying his motion.
Order affirmed.
Lewis & Leslie, for appellant, cited Wilson v. N. P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278; Curtis v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 534; Edgerton v. N.Y. & H. R. Co., 39 N.Y. 227; Ware v. Gay, 11 Pick. 106; Wilkie v. Bolster, 3 E. D. Smith, 327; Bowen v. N.Y. C. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 408; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Anderson, 94 Pa. 351; Sharp v. Grey, 9 Bing. 457; Graham v Davis, 4 Ohio St. 362; McLean v. Burbank, 11 Minn. 189, (277;) Hegeman v. Western R. Co., 13 N.Y 9; Edgerton v. N.Y. & H. R. Co., 35 Barb. 389; Steamboat v. King, 16 How. 469; Stokes v Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181; Dawson v. Manchester etc., Ry. Co., 7 H. & N. 1037; Readhead v. Midland Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 412; Robinson v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 9 F. 877.
Collester Bros., for respondent.
It must be admitted that the burden of proof rested upon the defendant in this case to show that the accident by which plaintiff was injured, on the train upon which he was a passenger, was not caused by any want of care or foresight on defendant's part. Such exonerating evidence would naturally embrace, as defendant insists it did in this case, the circumstances of the accident, the management of the train, and also the condition of the cars, road-bed, and track, at the particular place.
Whether or not, in this case, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury in defendant's favor, is the principal question on this appeal. The charge in the complaint is that, while plaintiff was such passenger, the defendant so negligently conducted in the operation of its road and the management of the train, that the car in which plaintiff was riding was derailed and thrown with great force from the track while the train was running at a high rate of speed, by reason of which he was seriously injured, etc. The testimony of defendant's witnesses tended to show that the road-bed, track, and cars were in good order and repair that the ties, rails, and fastenings were sound and strong, and of good materials; that the second car from the engine was the first to leave the track, and caused the derailment of the other cars; that at the point where it so left the track the rails remained well fastened and in their place after the accident; and that, upon an examination made by the conductor and engineer, who were competent to speak from experience, it did not appear that the accident was caused by any breakage or defect in anything connected with the cars or track. The evidence also shows that the engine was in charge of a skilful and competent engineer; that the train was being managed in the usual way, and was being run at the usual rate of speed, 25 miles an hour, which was considerably less than that of the express trains on the same road; and that the accident occurred just after the engineer had slackened the train for a crossing, as was customary, by the application of the airbrakes, under circumstances which seem to have afforded no reasonable ground for apprehending it. The conductor testified that trains are often thrown from the track from causes that are not discoverable upon the most careful examination. But, if this car "jumped" the track in consequence of "slackening," or "taking up the slack," in the train at the particular place in the road, it was a fact for the consideration of the jury, as, also, whether the happening of the accident from such a cause was consistent with the most careful practical management of the train. Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., ante, 214. We think the circumstances of the accident and of the management of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial