Glover v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 3800.,3800.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: GLOVER v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. et al.

54 Mont. 446

GLOVER
v.
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. et al.

No. 3800.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Feb. 26, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Missoula County; Theo. Lentz, Judge.

Action by William H. Glover against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company and another. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Henry C. Stiff, of Missoula, and Geo. W. Korte, of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.

Harry H. Parsons, of Missoula, and Edward Horsky, of Helena, for respondent.

SANNER, J.

On June 18, 1914, the plaintiff (respondent here) was injured while riding upon a gasoline speeder driven by the defendant Grimes upon the defendant company's tracks between East Portal and Saltese, in this state. He claims the right to recover upon these allegations of his complaint: That he was at the time a telegraph operator employed by the defendant company at East Portal and was en route to Saltese for the purpose of obtaining groceries and other food supplies for himself; that the defendant Grimes was and still is a roadmaster of the railway company, whose authority as such extended over this and other portions of its line and who as such possessed and used said speeder; that the speeder was made to and did seat more than one person and was capable of running at a high and dangerous rate of speed; that after January 1, 1914 (at which time certain privileges of free transportation for foodstuffs theretofore extended by the company to its employés at East Portal were revoked) “it became and was the custom of the defendants to take or invite said employés at said place on said motorcar and similar cars and convey and carry them to a station where said materials could be purchased and obtained, and elsewhere;” that on the day of the accident plaintiff boarded said speeder pursuant to such invitation; that unknown to him, but known, or by the exercise of due care knowable, to the defendants, the speeder “was in a defective and dangerous condition, in that one of the iron bolts which had to do with holding and keeping in place one of the wheels thereof was loose, unconnected, and wholly inadequate for said purpose, and at said time carelessly and negligently left and maintained in such condition;” that the defendants negligently failed to inspect the car or to warn the plaintiff of its defective condition; that with the car in such condition the defendants started with the plaintiff thereon down grade from East Portal to Saltese, and “negligently and carelessly ran, operated, and propelled said car at a high, rapid, and dangerous rate of speed, so that, and by...