Floan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Decision Date | 17 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,193 - (139) |
| Citation | 111 N.W. 957,101 Minn. 113 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN J. FLOAN v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Goodhue county to recover $2,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Williston J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order granting defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Railway -- Warning of Danger.
A custom of a railroad company to warn employees engaged upon its yard tracks of the approach of switch engines, by ringing the bell or sounding the whistle thereof, relieves such employees in a large measure from the strict rule of self-protection.
Contributory Negligence.
Within this rule, the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence in this case held properly submitted to the jury.
Johnson Mohn & Mohn, for appellant.
F. W. Root and Frank M. Wilson, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of defendant, in which plaintiff had a verdict for $2,000. Upon defendant's motion the court below ordered judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, and plaintiff appealed.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a laborer, and was struck by one of its switch engines and seriously injured. At the time of the accident defendant was engaged in making extensive changes in the yard tracks at Red Wing, the place of the accident, and plaintiff, with other laborers, was employed in and about that work. On October 3, 1904, the day of the injury, they were engaged in digging a trench parallel with the main track as it extended past the station building. At the close of the day the employees had removed their tools to the station building and were in the act of covering the trench, as a protection to other employees engaged in the yards at night, when, as plaintiff claims, one of defendant's switch engines came upon the scene at a rapid rate of speed, without notice or warning, and ran into and injured him.
The precise ground of negligence relied upon is that defendant had established a rule or custom for the operation of switch engines in the yards, by which the persons in charge thereof gave notice or warning of their approach to employees at work upon the tracks by ringing the bell or sounding the whistle, of which plaintiff was informed and upon which he relied for his protection; that the custom was negligently violated; that the engine which struck plaintiff was run through the yards at a rapid rate of speed, and no warning of its approach by ringing the bell or sounding the whistle was given. It is conceded that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury upon the question of defendant's negligence, both as respects the custom of ringing the bell as a warning to yard employees, and the failure to observe it; and no questions are presented on that branch of the case.
It is contended, however, that the evidence is conclusive of plaintiff's contributory negligence, and therefore the court below properly ordered judgment for defendant. This position is based upon the theory that plaintiff failed to exercise proper care for his own protection in looking and listening for an approaching engine before going upon the track at the time of the accident. We think the evidence made this a question of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial