Goneau v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.

Decision Date04 April 1924
Docket NumberNo. 23810.,23810.
Citation159 Minn. 41,198 N.W. 403
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesGONEAU v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; C. W. Stanton, Judge.

Action by Ernest J. Goneau against the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company. From an order denying its motion in the alternative for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Redactions predicated upon acts of Congress, the rule of the law of the case will not be applied if, since the former decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has expressed an opinion contrary to such decision.

There being nothing inconsistent in Davis v. Wolfe, 44 Sup. Ct. 64, 68 L. Ed. --, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States since the opinion in the former appeal herein was filed and relied on as precluding a recovery, the law of the case as announced in our former opinion should be applied, and accordingly the question whether the defective coupler was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury was properly left to the jury.

There was no error during the trial or in the manner in which the issues were submitted.

The charge of misconduct of counsel is not sustained.

The damages are not so large as to warrant interference by this court. M. A. Spooner, of Bemidji, and John E. Palmer, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson, of St. Paul, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

Defendant appeals from the order denying its motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.

[1][2] On a former appeal (154 Minn. 1, 191 N. W. 279), defendant's right to judgment upon a record substantially like the present was denied. This is conceded to be the law of the case now, unless the federal Supreme Court has in the meantime expressed an opinion that is out of harmony therewith; for that court is the final authority involving the application of the acts of Congress upon which this action is predicated, and our duty is to follow its rulings even to disregarding the law of the case, which, after all, is only a rule of practice. Sands v. Am. Ry. Express Co. (Minn.) 198 N. W. 402, filed April 4, 1924. Defendant claims that since our former decision the Supreme Court of the United States, in Davis v. Wolfe, 44 Sup. Ct. 64, 68 L. Ed. --, filed November 12, 1923, has clearly announced a principle under which defendant is entitled to judgment even though plaintiff was injured in the manner testified to by him. We think not.

In order to determine whether the decision referred to rules this case, the facts disclosed by the record must be kept in mind. They are not at all similar to those in the Wolfe Case, and appellant does not so claim, but relies on the principle therein stated which is asserted to take plaintiff herein out of the protection of the Safety Appliance Act (U. S. Comp. St. § 8605 et seq.). It is undisputed that in the string of 70 cars, being hauled in interstate commerce toward Superior, Wis., there was one so out of repair that, after leaving the station of Gordon, it disengaged from the coupler of the car behind, releasing the air and thereby causing an emergency stop of both parts of the train. When this occurred, the rear end of this car stood about 20 feet east of the west end of the bridge crossing the St. Croix river and about the same distance ahead of the rear portion of the train. The accident happened after dark on October 27, 1920, a rainy and snowy evening. As was his duty, plaintiff, the rear brakeman, went forward from the caboose to ascertain the cause of the mishap, and to restore normal conditions. He found the break and discovered that it was due to lack of bolts in the coupler, or drawbar carrier iron, one end of which was wholly unfastened; the burr on the single bolt holding it having worked off. This let the drawbar down so that the coupler slid out of the knuckle of the car behind. The carrier iron is unquestionably a part of the coupling device. If it is displaced the drawbar with coupler drops down and disengages from the coupler of a car in good order or cannot be coupled thereto. A passenger train was due at Gordon in a short time, and it was up to the crew of this freight train to get it out of the way. Plaintiff's duty was to couple up the parted train, and that speedily. To that end emergency repairs must be made so that the defective coupler would receive or fit into the one from which it parted. Plaintiff had no burr that could be used, so undertook to put shims between the coupler and carrier iron after it had been pulled in place. The train was then coupled together, but within a few feet it parted the same as before. Plaintiff again attempted to put the coupler in condition to couple. In so doing he claims that he put his knee or leg under the coupler to lift it in position and, at the same time, took hold of the carrier iron, the free end of which had swung in under the car, due to the pressure of the heavy coupler or drawbar, and gave a hard pull to get it back in place. It gave way suddenly. Plaintiff lost his balance, fell off the bridge to the ground, some 30 feet below, and was injured.

Defendant contends that plaintiff was not engaged in a coupling operation when he met with his injury, but was repairing the car and exactly in the same position as a repair man if the car had stood upon a repair track in some yard of defendant's; that the train was at rest and there could be no attempt to use the coupler until after it had been repaired; and therefore the defective coupler as a matter of law could not be the proximate cause of the injury any more than in the cases of St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Conarty, 238 U. S. 243, 35 Sup. Ct. 785, 59 L. Ed. 1290, and Lang v. New York Central Ry. Co., 255 U. S. 455,41 Sup. Ct. 581,65 L. Ed. 729, where it was so held. In those cases there was a collision with a bad order car with drawbar and coupler gone. It was not intended to couple onto or move the bad order car, but by mischance the car in one case and the locomotive in the other, upon which the employee rode, bumped into the bad order car and crushed him. Had the drawbar and coupler been present, the person of the employee could not have been harmed, for he was in a safe place if a car equipped with a coupler, such as the law requires, had been bumped into. But here there was an intention to couple onto the defective car. It was imperative to move it immediately. Plaintiff had to prepare the coupler so it would couple with the other car. He was not a repair man. Emergency repairs which, at times, he as brakeman was called to do in order to couple up trains that break in two in transit should not place him in the class of ordinary repair men doing their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Meierotto v. Thompson, 39984.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 10, 1947
    ......Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 303 U.S. 10, 13, 58 S. Ct. 426, 82 L. Ed. 614; Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co., 269 U.S. 406, 46 S. Ct. 129, 70 L. Ed. 335, affirming 159 Minn. 41, 198 N.W. 403; Southern Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 187 Fed. 492, ......
  • Meierotto v. Thompson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 10, 1947
    ...... continued violation of the Act. Brady v. Terminal. Railroad Assn., 303 U.S. 10, 13, 58 S.Ct. 426, 82 L.Ed. 614; Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S.M. Ry. Co., 269 U.S. 406, 46. S.Ct. 129, 70 L.Ed. 335, affirming 159 Minn. 41, 198 N.W. 403; Southern Ry. Co. v. Snyder, 187 F. ......
  • City of Waseca v. Braun, 32091.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • November 17, 1939
    ......139, 141, 272 N.W. 181, 182. Our own cases are in accord. Sands v. American Railway Express Co., 159 Minn. 25, 26, 198 N.W. 402; Goneau v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 159 Minn. 41, 42198 N.W. 403, 405;Dial Toaster Corp. v. Waters-Genter Co., 181 Minn. 606, 615, 233 N.W. ......
  • City of Waseca v. Braun
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 27, 1939
    ......181, 182. Our own. cases are in accord. Sands v. American Railway Express. Co., 159 Minn. 25, 26, 198 N.W. 402; [206 Minn. 166] Goneau v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 159 Minn. 41, 42198 N.W. 403, 405; Dial Toaster. Corp. v. Waters-Genter Co., 181 Minn. 606, 615, 233 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT