Flanaghan v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1896
• Citation: 67 N.W. 794,65 Minn. 112
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: FLANAGHAN ET AL. v CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

65 Minn. 112

67 N.W. 794

FLANAGHAN ET AL.vCHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 10, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action brought to recover damages caused by a fire alleged to have resulted from the careless and negligent management and operation of one of defendant's locomotives, there being no direct evidence as to the origin of the fire, the court charged the jury that if, from the evidence, they found that the fire started near defendant's right of way soon after a certain train passed, and that there was no other fire in the vicinity except that in the locomotive, and no other apparent cause for the breaking out of the fire, they would have the right to infer and find that it was set by the locomotive, but that they “would not be bound to so infer or find if there is reasonable ground to believe that it may have been started in some other way.” Held misleading and prejudicially erroneous.

Appeal from district court, Winona county; Ozro B. Gould, Judge.

Action by John Flanaghan and another against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Reversed.

M. B. Webber, for appellant.

P. Fitzpatrick, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This was a fire case, in which plaintiffs had a verdict. It was alleged in the complaint, and claimed on the trial, that the fire in question was set out and started by sparks and coals thrown from and scattered by one of defendant's locomotives while it was being carelessly and negligently operated along defendant's line of railway. There was no direct evidence that the fire was set out or started by sparks or coals scattered by the locomotive, but the circumstantial evidence tended to establish this, and was sufficient to warrant the jury in so finding. There are several specifications of error, but we shall consider the third only. This challenges the correctness of a part of an extremely long charge to the jury upon very simple issues. The court, in this charge, after stating that the burden of proof was on plaintiffs to establish their assertion that the fire originated from defendant's locomotive, called attention to the testimony of several of plaintiffs' witnesses to the effect that, on the night of the fire, and shortly before it broke out in some rye stubble near the right of way, when what was known as the “Fast-Mail Train” passed by, they noticed that a large and...