Fox v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | 16,960 - (42) |
| Parties | EDWARD H. FOX v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $26,500 for personal injuries received at Gibbon, Minnesota. The answer admitted defendant was a railroad corporation, and owned and operated a line of railway running through the village of Gibbon; that in that town it maintained a depot with the usual appurtenances for the accommodation of passengers and freight traffic; that it operated its line of railway as a common carrier of passengers for hire, and owned and controlled the general tracks, engines, cars and other appurtenances and equipment, including railway stations and depots; that on August 2, 1909, plaintiff was injured by one of its passenger trains. The case was tried before Olin B Lewis, J., who directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Railway -- duty to person not a passenger.
A railway company is under no duty to hold a train at a way station to give a person who has gone on a train for a conference with a passenger time to alight therefrom, or to aid such person in getting off the train safely by giving signals or lighting the station platform; the trainmen having no notice that such person was about to leave the train, and having in no way assented to his going on the train for said purpose.
Railway -- risk of injury.
A person who goes upon a train to confer with a passenger thereon, without giving the trainmen notice of his so doing or obtaining their assent thereto, assumes the risk of the train starting without signals while he is getting off, and of the unlighted condition of the platform.
Thomas C. Daggett and Edward B. Graves, for appellant.
W. H. Bremner, George W. Seevers, and Eugene Bryan, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff to recover for an injury claimed to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Upon the trial the court, on motion of the defendant made at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff, by this appeal, questions the correctness of the court's ruling granting such motion for a directed verdict. The facts here material, as disclosed by the evidence, are as follows:
The plaintiff had been employed at Gibbon for several months. On the evening of August 2, 1909, he had an appointment with one Colton to meet him in the smoking car of a train of the defendant company which reached Gibbon about 11:27 that night. When the train arrived in Gibbon, the plaintiff came around the end of the train, ran along the side of the cars and got on the train at the end of the smoker. He walked through the smoker, saw that Colton was not there, went out at the front end of the car, and attempted to get off the...
To continue reading
Request your trial