Flanders v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1892 |
| Citation | 51 Minn. 193 |
| Parties | GEORGE B. FLANDERS <I>vs.</I> CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, M. & O. RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This action was brought by the plaintiff, George B. Flanders, against the defendant Railway Company, to recover for personal injuries received by him as stated in the opinion. Issue was joined, and the case tried March 29, 1892. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $10,000. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and it appeals.
Thos. Wilson, S. L. Perrin, and C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for appellant.
Munn, Boyeson & Thygeson, for respondent.
As is usual in actions of this class, the two main issues in the case were: (1) Was the defendant guilty of negligence? (2) Was the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence?
On both points the evidence presented a case for the jury. There was really no conflict of evidence, all the material facts and circumstances being practically undisputed.
At the date of the accident the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a brakeman on a freight train which passed through Shakopee. He had been in defendant's employ only three days, and was not familiar with the route, having made only one previous trip over the road, in which he had passed through Shakopee in the night. At that place the defendant had a side track running from the main track westerly to a stock chute and cattle pen. On the same side of the track as the cattle pen, and some two hundred feet east of it, stood a section house, so close to the track as to leave only between seventeen and eighteen inches between the eaves of the building and the side of a passing car, and only between thirteen and fourteen inches between the eaves and the rounds of the ladder on the side of a car. On the same side of the track, and from three hundred to three hundred and fifty feet further east, was the switch used in getting cars back and forth between the main track and the side track. On the day in question (November 27th) the train on which plaintiff was employed reached Shakopee about four o'clock in the morning; it being still dark, and the weather cloudy and moonless. It was necessary to set out at the cattle pen a car load of cattle, which was the third car from the engine, and for that purpose three cars were detached from the train, and backed in onto the side track, and run west until the cattle car was "spotted," and cut off at the cattle pen. The engine, with the other two cars, then started back east towards the switch for the purpose of going out again onto the main track. The plaintiff, who was "head brakeman," was on top of the forward car. While the cars were still in motion, and going at the rate of four or five miles an hour, the plaintiff, when nearly opposite the section house, (of the existence of which he was ignorant,) commenced to descend the ladder on the side of the car for the purpose, as was his duty, of throwing the switch as soon as the cars passed it. While in the act of thus descending he was struck by the eaves of the section house, and thrown upon the ground, and sustained the injuries complained of.
The negligence charged against the defendant was placing the section house in dangerous proximity to the track. On the other hand, the defendant claims that this section house was so far distant from the switch that brakemen had no occasion to attempt to descend the sides of cars at that place; that, consequently, it was not to be reasonably anticipated that they would do so, and therefore the location of the section house at that place in such proximity to the track was not negligent. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negligence in (1) attempting to descend the...
To continue reading
Request your trial