Gray v. St. Paul City Railway Company
| Decision Date | 31 October 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,101 - (50) |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 1106,87 Minn. 280 |
| Parties | HENRY M. GRAY v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county by plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Charles H. Gray, deceased, to recover $5,000 for the death of decedent. The case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,750. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Street-Railway Crossing -- Giving Signals.
Where street-railway tracks occupy a street at the foot of an incline which, in conjunction with other streets, forms a system of crossings in a populous part of the city, it is the duty of the motorman in charge of a car coming down the grade to keep a lookout for young children approaching the crossings or standing near the tracks, and to take reasonable precaution to prevent injury to them, by sounding the gong checking the speed of the train, and holding it under control.
City Ordinance -- Stopping Car.
A certain ordinance reads as follows: "No person having the control of the speed of a street-railway car passing in a street shall, on the appearance of * * * any obstruction to his car, fail to stop the car in the shortest time and space possible." Held, this ordinance is not unreasonable, in that it requires the stopping of the car without regard to the safety of the train and the persons therein. It is no more than a declaration of the law, and only requires the person in charge of the car, upon the appearance of an obstruction, to stop the car as soon as possible under the circumstances, with due regard for the safety of the passengers.
Assignments of Error.
Other assignments of error considered, and held to be not well taken.
Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.
Charles N. Dohs and S. P. Crosby, for respondent.
At the foot of Oakland avenue, in the city of St. Paul, Ramsey street, Oakland avenue, Pleasant avenue, and Garfield street cross each other; and Oakland avenue runs up a steep incline, on a grade of 3.66 feet per 100, and is occupied by defendant's street railway system, consisting of double tracks, and at the foot of the grade the tracks turn upon a curve in Ramsey street. The crossings are in a populous part of the city, and in frequent use. On January 19, 1901, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, Charles H. Gray, an infant, five years and nine months of age, was struck by one of defendant's cars at or near the crossing on the south side of Ramsey street at its intersection with Garfield street, and received injuries from which he died. This action is brought by the administrator to recover damages for the boy's death. At the trial below, plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,750. Defendant appealed.
First. Was there any evidence reasonably tending to show that defendant was guilty of negligence? Second. Was error committed by the court in giving certain instructions to the jury? Third. Was a certain ordinance of the city admissible in evidence? Fourth. Did the court err in permitting testimony to be received as to the distance the car ran after the accident?
1. The charge of negligence against the defendant is as follows: The deceased, in company with a little girl about nine years of age, had left his home, on the north side of Ramsey street, in order to go to a store on the other side of the street car tracks; and as the children approached the tracks the motorman of the car coming down the Oakland avenue grade could have seen the children, and should have anticipated that they would either attempt to cross the tracks ahead of the car, or that they would be in such close proximity as to be in danger, and that under such circumstances it was the duty of the motorman to have had his car under control, and checked its speed. That the car came down the hill at a rapid rate, and crossed Garfield street without giving any signal, and in consequence the boy was struck.
According to the testimony of the little girl, Eleanor Lynch, she and the little boy came down the sidewalk on the north side of Oakland avenue, skipping along until they reached the curb and then, hand in hand, walked towards the car tracks to cross the street. That she saw a west-bound car going up the hill, and that they walked on until they came upon the north track, and reached that point just as the fender of the front car of the east-bound train passed them, and she told the little boy to look out for the car; but he, excited over a runaway which had occurred on Ramsey street, pulled his hand away from her and ran towards the passing train, and was struck by the platform of the second car. Another witness, who was in the front car of the train, testified that as the car approached the crossing she looked out over her shoulder, and noticed the children running in the street...
To continue reading
Request your trial