Flannagan v. St. Paul City Railway Company

• Decision Date: 21 May 1897
• Docket Number: 10,499--(99)
• Citation: 71 N.W. 379,68 Minn. 300
• Parties: JAMES FLANNAGAN v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

71 N.W. 379

68 Minn. 300

JAMES FLANNAGAN v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 10,499--(99)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 21, 1897

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., denying a new trial. Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondent.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

This was an action to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff, and for damages to his property, the result, it was alleged, of the negligence of one of defendant's motoneers while running a street car operated by electricity on one of its lines in the city of St. Paul. In a trial to a jury, plaintiff secured a verdict, which was set aside by the court upon the ground of inadequacy in amount. By stipulation of the parties the evidence as received upon this jury trial was then submitted to the court for a decision upon the merits, and subsequently the court made and filed its findings of fact, on which it ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 730. The injuries and damages resulted from a collision on a public street between the car and plaintiff's hack or carriage, which was being drawn by a pair of horses, plaintiff himself being the driver thereof. The collision occurred about the center of a block, as plaintiff was attempting to cross the rails upon which the car was approaching. It is contended by defendant's counsel that there was no evidence to support a finding, made by the court, that defendant's employe negligently and carelessly projected the car upon and against the hack, and, further, if there was, that the uncontradicted facts clearly establish that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which would preclude recovery.

We have very carefully examined the evidence upon which the court must have predicated the above-mentioned finding. It is not very satisfactory, but we are of the opinion that the claim of defendant's counsel cannot be upheld, and that there was evidence which justified a finding that the motoneer did not exercise such care in the management of his car just prior to the collision as a man of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. When a motoneer discovers a vehicle on the track a short distance ahead of him, it is his duty to have the power which propels the car under his control, and to use it so as to avoid a collision with such vehicle if he can. The fact that the vehicle can be turned in either direction, and that the way is open for it to be turned, does...