Frye v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,575 |
| Citation | 195 N.W. 629,157 Minn. 52 |
| Parties | JAMES B. FRYE v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Judgment Filed December 10, 1923
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $30,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Montgomery J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $15,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Federal Boiler Inspection Act applies to safety device.
1. A safety device, which is a part of the equipment of a tender attached to a locomotive engaged in interstate commerce, is subject to the application of the Federal Boiler Inspection Act (chapter 169, 38 St. 1192), when the handle thereof assumes an abnormal and dangerous position when at rest and not in use, even though it will properly perform its function when in use.
Liberal construction of safety appliance acts.
2. Federal safety appliance acts are to be construed liberally.
Case distinguished.
3. The case of Miller v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. 140 Minn. 14, does not decide the applicability of the act of March 4, 1915 (chapter 169, 38 St. 1192).
Nonresident entitled to redress in Minnesota courts.
4. A citizen of a foreign state has the legal right to prosecute in the courts in this state an action against a common carrier, who is engaged in business in this state, to recover for personal injuries received by him in another state as an employe of such carrier while engaged in interstate commerce and he cannot be denied this right because the court in the state where he has received his injuries has entered a judgment in equity restraining his prosecuting such action in the courts in this state.
New trial denied.
5. The evidence does not so predominate in favor of appellant as to justify granting a new trial.
Verdict of $15,000 not excessive.
6. Upon an examination of the record it cannot be said that the damages are excessive.
O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, for appellant.
George C. Stiles and F. M. Miner, for respondent.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff at Davenport, Iowa, which he claims to have suffered, while in the employment of the defendant railroad company, as a railway switch foreman, at a time when the parties were engaging in interstate commerce.
Plaintiff claims that at said time defendant, in violation of its duty imposed by an act of Congress, maintained upon the end of a tender attached to a switch engine, a coupling device which was imperfect, inoperative and dangerous to employes, in this: That said coupler was operated by means of a lever or rod extending along the end of said tender to the outer corner thereof, where the same was bent in a downward direction, the bent-downward portion being from 4 to 6 inches in length and bending toward the sill or the beam of said tender, such last projection being about 2 inches in length, so that, when said lever or rod was in proper position, and at rest, the last described projection on the end thereof would come in contact with the sill of said tender, thereby causing the handle part of said lever to be out and away from said sill a convenient distance, so that the hand of an operative in attempting to take hold of said lever would not come in contact with the sill of said tender. That, in the center of said rod and over said coupler-head, said lever was attached to the lift pin which operates and throws open the knuckle in the coupler, by a chain or link so attached to said coupler pin and said lever: That when by the use of said lever said pin was lifted, throwing the knuckle in said coupler open, such chain or link attachment between said pin and said lever would not permit the handle on the end of said lever to drop back to a downward position, but, on the contrary, would cause said lever, when the knuckle was open, to remain in a position where such handle on the end of said lever with the hook or bent end thereof to extend outward from the end of said tender or the sill thereof at right angles thereto, so that the same, when said knuckle was open, would extend out and over the foot-board on the end of said tender upon which men were required to be at different times when in the performance of their duties when switching with said engine and tender, and, by reason thereof, employes of defendant, in doing their work, would necessarily be in danger and would be liable to catch some part of their clothing upon said projecting handle and by means thereof be thrown from said foot-board and injured.
It is the claim of the plaintiff that, while engaged in the active and faithful performance of his duties as switching foreman, working with said engine and in making up an interstate train, he was on the foot-board of said engine as the same was moving about in the yard and near the left-hand side of said engine, considering the direction in which the engine was being so operated, as the same was being operated in a backward direction, when it became necessary for him to step from said foot-board for the purpose of lining the switch in order to enable the engine to move in the performance of the duties which the crew were then performing, and that, because of said alleged defective appliance, the said handle of the lever of said device, which was projecting outward at right angles from the sill of said tank, caught the plaintiff as he was attempting to alight from said foot-board in a proper and customary manner, catching in the pocket of plaintiff's top coat, causing plaintiff to be suddenly jerked from the foot-board, throwing him downward and upon the ground in such manner as to cause him to suffer severe and serious injuries.
Issue was joined and the case tried to a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15,000.
The defendant made an alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial and has now appealed to this court from an order denying such motion.
The trial court held that this action was subject to the application of the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, and hence eliminated assumption of risk and contributory negligence as defenses.
Appellant now urges: (1) That no violation of the Federal Boiler Inspection Act was shown, and that, if any negligence was shown, it must be based upon common law principles; (2) that the trial court should have refused to try this case at all because of an Iowa injunction; (3) that the evidence so preponderated in favor of the defendant that the court should have granted a new trial, as a matter of discretion; (4) that the damages are excessive.
1. Our first inquiry is as to whether or not chapter 169, 38 Stat 1192, being the Boiler Inspection Act, applies to the facts in this case. Plaintiff claims that it does, and defendant contends that it does not; and defendant says that, if there is any liability in this case, it must be predicated upon a common law liability, and it, then, may have the benefit of the defenses of...
To continue reading
Request your trial