Fay v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 May 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,040 - (167) |
| Parties | BRIDGET FAY v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Watonwan county by the administratrix of Owen F. Fay, deceased, to recover $5,000 by reason of the death of her intestate while employed by defendant. The facts are stated in the opinion. From an order, Severance, J., denying a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Railway -- Removal of Snow from Yards -- Negligence -- Reasonable Care.
Reasonable care does not require railroad companies to remove all the snow from their yards, where cars are switched and trains made up. If they keep the surface of the snow practically level, and do not allow it to accumulate above the level of the rails, or in dangerous ridges or hummocks, or to form dangerous holes, they cannot be charged with negligence (at least, unless under very special and peculiar circumstances) for not removing the snow, or covering it with ashes or cinders.
Railway -- Injury to Switchman -- Assumption of Risk.
Held also, that in this case the deceased must, or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should, have known of the slippery condition of the surface of the snow, and the risks incident to such condition.
Seager & Lobben and W. S. Hammond, for appellant.
L. K Luse, Lorin Cray and Thomas Wilson, for respondent.
This was an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. When the plaintiff rested, the court, on motion of the defendant, dismissed the case, on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cause of action. From an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff appealed.
There is no dispute as to the evidentiary facts. The deceased was a yard switchman in defendant's yard at St. James, and met his death about 9 p.m. on January 27, 1897, by being run over by the cars while attempting to cut off a car from a moving train which was being made up in the yard at that time. The claim of the plaintiff is that the accident resulted from deceased slipping on the snow or ice, and falling under the wheels of the moving cars.
Under the evidence, the only possible claim upon which any negligence of the defendant can be predicated is the slippery condition of the yard, by reason of the presence of snow and ice. The snow had not drifted or piled up; neither were there any artificial piles or banks. The natural fall of snow had been trodden down to about the level of, or a little below, the tops of the rails. There were no holes or hummocks, but its surface was substantially level throughout the yard, except that the snow had been removed just inside the rails, where the flanges of the wheels run. This rendered the surface of the snow between the rails of the several tracks somewhat higher in the center than at the rails, but this fact in no way conduced to the accident, for the reason that the deceased was at the time outside the rails, in one of the spaces between tracks.
While the occupation of switchmen in the railroad yard is a hazardous one, and railroad companies should exercise a degree of care commensurate with the risks, reasonable care does...
To continue reading
Request your trial