Greengard v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1898
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,992 - (106).,s. 10,992 - (106).
• Citation: 72 Minn. 181
• Parties: JOSEPH GREENGARD v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 Minn. 181

JOSEPH GREENGARD v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.

Nos. 10,992 - (106).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 9, 1898.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,500. Remanded, with directions to enter judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

The map referred to in opinion will be found on the following page.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

C. D. O'Brien, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The accident wherein plaintiff was injured occurred about eight o'clock in the evening of December 19, 1896, on Seventh street, between Locust and John streets, in the city of St. Paul, at a point from 100 to 150 feet west of the westerly line of the intersection of

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Seventh and Locust streets. The defendant had two parallel tracks on Seventh street, its west-bound cars being operated on the north track, and its east-bound cars on the south track. The plaintiff lived and had a small store at No. 406, on the south side of Seventh street, about the middle of the block between Locust and John streets. He had lived there about 18 months, and was entirely familiar with the situation, and knew that the cars "always run pretty fast." He was 55 years old, and, so far as appears, was in full possession of all his faculties.

On the evening in question he went from his own store across to the north side of Seventh street, to No. 417, to get some money changed. No. 417 is somewhat further east than plaintiff's store. Hence he crossed Seventh street diagonally. All of this will be fully understood by reference to the map on the preceding page. On returning to his own place of business, the plaintiff followed the same route which he had taken in crossing from the south to the north. When he was about to cross the defendant's tracks he discovered on the north track an approaching west-bound car within a few feet of the easterly line of the intersection of Seventh and Locust streets, and too near for him to attempt to cross in front of it. He thereupon halted within a few feet (apparently three or four) of the north track, to let the car pass. Immediately upon its passing he started across, to use his own language, "right behind" the car; and when he had reached the space between the tracks he was struck by the "shoulder" of an east-bound car on the south track, and received the injuries complained of.

The witnesses estimated the speed of the west-bound car at not less than 6 or 7 miles, and that of the east-bound car from 12 to 17 miles, an hour. Some of the witnesses testified that they did not see any headlight on the east-bound car, but none of them were able to testify that there was none, and none of them seemed to have had their attention specially called to the matter. They would have been much more likely to notice so unusual a thing as a car running at night without a headlight than to notice the presence of it. Such slight negative evidence cannot overcome the positive testimony of the...