Goldstein v. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1879
• Citation: 1 N.W. 37,46 Wis. 404
• Parties: GOLDSTEIN v. THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

1 N.W. 37

46 Wis. 404

GOLDSTEIN v. THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

March 25, 1879

APPEAL from the County Court of Milwaukee County.

Action for injuries from defendant's negligence. After alleging that defendant is a corporation and common carrier, and the owner of block 155 in the city of Milwaukee, the complaint proceeds as follows:

"That said block 155 is bounded north and west by the Menomonee Canal; that a certain freight depot is located thereon, and that the same is approachable only on the north and west side of said depot, on a narrow passageway on the dock between the depot and said canal, and that there is hardly sufficient room for two wagons crossing in opposite directions to pass each other, without forcing the wagon on the outer or canal side from the dock into the canal; that, in order to avoid such forcing or pushing of the outer vehicle into the canal it would be necessary to provide the passage aforesaid with guards, barriers or rails on the canal side; that said defendant, although as such common carrier it receives into and ships from said depot a large quantity of freight by divers teams going back and forth on said narrow passage, has neglected and failed, and still neglects and fails, to provide said passage with the necessary guards, barriers or rails; that on the 6th day of June, 1877, this plaintiff, in order to get freight from said depot, brought there a short time before by said defendant as such carrier, carefully drove his horse and wagon loaded with goods of the value of about $ 70, to the western passage, where said freight could be most conveniently received, and, while so driving, another team stood on said passage on the depot side, so that this plaintiff cautiously and carefully turned his horse to the outer or canal side; that his said horse, for the want of railing on that side, became frightened, and refused to pass by said wagon, and backed the wagon so suddenly that this plaintiff had not even time to notice the dangerous position he was in, and, by the backing aforesaid, without any fault of this plaintiff, the wagon, the plaintiff, the goods and the horse were precipitately plunged into the said canal."

Then follows a statement of the injuries received by the plaintiff to his person and property, and prayer for judgment.

Defendant demurred to the complaint as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of...