Gibson v. Iowa Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1911
• Citation: 115 Minn. 147,131 N.W. 1057
• Parties: GIBSON v. IOWA CENT. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

115 Minn. 147

131 N.W. 1057

GIBSON

v.IOWA CENT. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 7, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Freeborn County; Nathan Kingsley, Judge.

Action by Frank D. Gibson against the Iowa Central Railway Company. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The general rule is that a railway company is not liable to its employés for injuries resulting from climatic conditions, such as snow and ice; but within its yard limits it must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the risks to prevent the accumulation of snow or ice in such quantity, form, and location as to be a menace to the safety of its employés working in its yards.

The defendant was not entitled to an instructed verdict. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the plaintiff.

The trial court did not err in its rulings as to the admission of evidence, nor in denying a motion for a new trial on the alleged ground of the misconduct of plaintiff's attorney. W. H. Bremner and N. E. Peterson (Geo. W. Seevers, of counsel), for appellant.

Dunn & Carlson, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Personal injury action. Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,200, and defendant appealed from an order of the district court of the county of Freeborn denying its blended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

[1] 1. The first contention of the defendant is that upon the plaintiff's own evidence it was entitled to an instructed verdict in its favor, for the reason that his injury resulted from snow, the hazard of which he assumed as one of the risks of his employment. The law relevant to this question is well settled. The general rule is that a railway company is not liable to its employés for injuries resulting from climatic conditions, such as ice and snow; but within its yard limits it must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the risks to prevent the accumulation of snow and ice in such quantity, form, and location as to be a menace to the safety of its employés working in its yards. Lawson v. Truesdale, 60 Minn. 410, 62 N. W. 546;Fay v. Railway Co., 72 Minn. 192, 75 N. W. 15;Rifley v. Railway Co., 72 Minn. 469, 75 N. W. 704.

[2] The gist of this action is the alleged negligence of the defendant in failing to keep its yards free from a snowbank which caused the plaintiff's injury. The jury, under the charge of the court, necessarily found that the defendant was thus negligent. If, then, there was any evidence tending to establish such negligence, the defendant's motion for a directed verdict was correctly denied. There was evidence, taking the most favorable view of it permissible for plaintiff, fairly tending to show the evidentiary facts following:

Plaintiff, an experienced railroad man, was head brakeman on a local freight running on defendant's line from Mason City to Albert Lea. He was injured in defendant's yards January 3, 1910, at Northwood, Iowa, about 8:30 o'clock in the evening on a dark night, when the trainmen were working with lanterns. The yards consisted of a main line and some side tracks. His train came in from the south, and passed to the north end of the yards on a side track, where the engine and two cars were cut from the main train for switching purposes. The engine and two cars cleared the switch at the north end, backed down on the elevator track, picked up several cars, and pulled them back over the north switch. The operation was then to ‘kick’ some of the cars down on the main line and others back on the elevator track. Owing to a curve in the track, it was necessary for him to work on the left side of the train and give his signals to the fireman. He cut off two cars, but when he undertook to cut off the third one, which was to go down the main line, the lift lever refused to work. He then got upon the side of the car with his foot in the stirrup, and hung on the side of the car with one hand while he endeavored to work the lifting lever with the other. This was the usual and proper position to take, and was the customary way to ride on the side of the car when it was to be cut off. While in this position he was knocked off the side of the car by a hard bank of snow on the main line, 3 1/2 to 4 feet in height, and high enough and near enough to hit plaintiff when on the side of the car. He fell under the train with his legs across the track; but the brakeman knocked his legs off the track, and he was doubled up with his head and knees together, and shoved into the snowbank by the moving car. This snowbank had been shoveled out around the switch and for a distance of 25 or 30 feet south of the switch; but it had not been shoveled out at the point where plaintiff was knocked from the car. This snowbank was hard and solid and did not appear to be fresh snow. It was dark-colored and had ice in it. The general rule was to have...