Everett v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 15 March 1907 |
| Docket Number | 14,938 - (106) |
| Citation | 111 N.W. 281,100 Minn. 309 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. EVERETT v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $15,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Cant, J and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500. From a judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Reversed, with directions to enter judgment for defendant.
Violation of Statutory Duty.
The violation of a statutory duty is the foundation of an action in favor of such persons only as belong to the class intended by the legislature to be protected by such statute.
Failure to Ring Bell at Railroad Crossing.
A railway company is not under a legal duty to give the signal required by G.S. 1894, § 6637 (R.L. 1905, § 5001), for the benefit of a person who is driving a team along a street parallel to the railway track near a crossing, but who does not intend to use the crossing.
Failure to Ring Bell at Railroad Crossing -- Horses on Parallel Street.
Where, under such circumstances, the approach of the train frightens the horses and causes them to run away, negligence cannot be predicated upon the failure to give the crossing signals in order that the driver may have warning and an opportunity to care for his team.
Moving Freight by Gravity.
The moving of a freight car by gravity on a track running along a street, in charge of a brakeman, at a slow rate of speed and with no unusual or unnecessary noise, is not negligence, and no cause of action arises in favor of a person who is driving along the street parallel with and in front of the moving car, and whose horses are frightened and caused to run away by the noise of the approaching car.
W. R. Begg, J. A. Murphy, and Heber McHugh, for appellant.
Martin Hughes and Baldwin, Baldwin & Dancer, for respondent.
The accident out of which this case arose occurred in the village of Hibbing. Second and Third avenues of the village are public streets running north and south. The streets cross these avenues at right angles. The defendant's main line and switching tracks cross First, Second, and Third avenues. On the south side of the tracks, running parallel therewith, is a driveway, known as "Railroad Street," which commences beyond First avenue and crosses Second and Third avenues. This street is from thirty to forty feet wide. Near First avenue there branches off from defendant's main yard a track, called the "Industry Track," which runs southeastwardly, and after crossing Second avenue it runs along in Railroad street and ends at Third avenue. This track reaches a number of warehouses and lumber sheds, and is largely used for delivering single cars, with loads, at warehouses. For a number of years it has been customary, in delivering and placing these single cars, to cut the car from the main train while it is moving slowly. A brakeman on the car controls its speed, and rides it into place near the store or warehouse where it is to be unloaded, and there stops it by applying the brake. Both the passenger and freight depots of the defendant are in this switching yard, between Second and Third avenues. Switching is carried on in the yard almost continuously. The distance between First and Second avenues is about four hundred and fifteen feet.
On October 5, 1904, the plaintiff, Everett, was employed by the village of Hibbing in hauling rock from a point on Railroad street, between First and Second avenues, where it had been unloaded from trains. About 11:40 a.m. he came south on Second avenue to Railroad street and drove over to the rockpile. One of his horses was nervous, and would prance and jump at the noise of engines and trains. The horse was afraid of hand cars and of cars moving alone. Because of the noise caused by the switching, the animal commenced to prance about the time it reached the rockpile. He was frightened, jumped, and could not be made to stand still. The foreman in charge of loading the rock, upon noting the condition of the team, told Everett to drive his "crazy team" to a place of safety and there wait until they were through switching. Everett then drove west on Railroad street to near First avenue, where he turned the team about so that the horses faced toward Second avenue. As he turned he saw an engine and some cars, and heard the bell upon the engine ringing. These cars had been switching and backing in that vicinity all the morning, and had been observed by Everett. While the team was standing here the man in charge of the work said to plaintiff Plaintiff then drove east along Railroad street, toward Second avenue, a distance of about four hundred feet, before the accident occurred. On the way he passed a warehouse, and about forty feet east of this warehouse there was a lumber pile. The railroad track was to his left, beyond the warehouse and lumber yard, and converging toward Railroad street. As Everett passed the opening between the warehouse and the lumber pile, he looked to see if any cars were coming, and saw none. The distance from the lumber pile to where the accident happened is about a hundred fifty feet. After passing the lumber yard there was nothing to obstruct the view of the track.
As the plaintiff was driving along he was sitting on the dump boards of his wagon with his feet hanging down. He says that he looked east, but did not look back after passing the lumber yard. The team was traveling about four miles an hour. As he drove along one of the horses continued to prance and jump so as to attract the attention of bystanders. As the team approached Second avenue, a single box car with a brakeman on top of it came along the track behind him. This track was parallel to the road, and ran within some twelve feet of the part of the highway on which the wagon was traveling. There is some conflict about the rate of speed at which the car was approaching. The appellant claims that it was traveling at practically the same speed as the team, and remained fifty to seventy five feet behind it all the time. The respondent claims that it came at a more rapid pace, and that at the time of the accident the front of the car had reached the rear part of the wagon. The claim is that as the car approached the horses became more frightened, and began to dance and finally jumped to one side, thus bringing the front wheel of the wagon against the sidewalk, over which it passed and fell into a depression some eighteen inches deep. The respondent claims that the board on which he was sitting then broke and caught in the wheel, so as to cause it to fly up and strike him and knock him from the wagon under the horses' feet. The appellant, on the other hand, claims that the board on which Everett was sitting broke, and, becoming entangled in the wheel, caused the team to start to run.
For the purposes of this appeal we accept respondent's story that the horses were frightened by the approach of the car and swung sharply to the right and ran away. The car was making no unnecessary noise as it approached. It had no engine attached to it, and, of course, was not ringing a bell or gong, or giving any such signal of its approach. The wagon was rattling so that Everett did not hear the car. The car had been detached from a train of four cars and an engine near First avenue, about four hundred feet from the point where the accident occurred. At the time it was cut off the bell on the engine was ringing. It was customary to spot in cars in this way, and as many as fifteen or twenty cars were handled in this manner in one day. It was not customary to handle the cars with an engine on the local track, and the evidence tends to show that a single car can be handled more safely with a man handling the brake than when attached to an engine. The car could be stopped by the brake within three or four feet. Everett testified that he was unfamiliar with this method of "shunting" cars. Everett did not intend to cross the railroad track on Second avenue, but intended to turn south when he reached the avenue and go home for his dinner. Upon this condition of the facts the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed from a judgment entered thereon.
1. The issues involved were the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The specific negligence on the part of the defendant charged in the complaint is:
That while plaintiff was so driving, and just before the said team reached the intersection of said Second avenue and Railroad street, the defendant negligently and carelessly, and without ringing any bell or blowing any whistle, and without giving any warning of any kind, backed a car by means of a locomotive engine upon said track at a switch situated at a point westerly from said Second avenue, and in the rear of plaintiff, all of which was done upon said public street within the limits of the said village of Hibbing. Thereupon, and when plaintiff's team was entering upon the street crossing at the intersection of said Railroad street and said Second avenue, and while said team and said wagon in which plaintiff was riding were in a position parallel with said railroad track of the defendant, the defendant carelessly and negligently caused said car to be moved over said track from said switch easterly past plaintiff and his said team and wagon; that in moving the said car the defendant carelessly and negligently entered as aforesaid upon said track with said engine attached to said car; that after said engine and said car had crossed said switch the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial