Green v. E. Ry. Co. of Minn.

• Decision Date: 27 December 1892
• Citation: 52 Minn. 79,53 N.W. 808
• Parties: GREEN v EASTERN RY. CO. OF MINNESOTA.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

52 Minn. 79

53 N.W. 808

GREENvEASTERN RY. CO. OF MINNESOTA.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 27, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Evidence held to justify the charge of negligence in failing to give signal of the approach of a railway train to a street crossing, by reason of which the plaintiff's horses, being driven by the plaintiff on the street towards the crossing, were frightened, and caused the injury of the plaintiff.

2. Specific authority in a city charter to regulate by ordinance the speed of railway trains held not to restrict a general grant of authority which, standing alone, would have authorized the adoption of an ordinance requiring a flagman to be kept at a railroad crossing.

Appeal from district court, Anoka county, CANTY, Judge.

Action by James V. Green against the Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

M. D. Grover, for appellant.

E. H. Ammons, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

At about half past 5 o'clock, or a little later, in the afternoon of the 17th of December, it having then become dark, the plaintiff, in an open buggy with a span of horses, drove north on Seventh avenue in the city of Anoka towards the track of the defendant, which crossed that street. As he approached the crossing to within about 25 or 30 feet of the railroad track a passenger train from the west ran over the crossing, frightening the horses so that they wheeled suddenly, throwing the plaintiff out of his buggy, causing injuries for which this action is brought. Liability on the part of the defendant is attributed to the failure to give any signal or warning of the approach of the train, including the neglect of the defendant to station a flagman at this crossing. As to the fact of the negligence of the defendant a case was presented which entitled the plaintiff to go to the jury. The evidence was conflicting as to whether any signal was given from the locomotive, and there was no flagman at the crossing. The evidence also tended to show that for a distance of about two blocks south of the crossing the plaintiff could not have seen an approaching train by reason of intervening buildings and a high fence Such obstruction to the view on the west side of the street extended to within 36 feet of the center of the railroad track. The evidence, as returned, does not show very distinctly the opportunities of the plaintiff for seeing an approaching train while he was at a greater distance than two blocks from the crossing, although it is shown that at some places at least one could see between intervening buildings. The plaintiff's evidence was that he both looked and listened, walking his horses, but did not see or hear the train, or any signal, until the...