Gruhl v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 21 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,872 |
| Citation | 168 N.W. 127,140 Minn. 353 |
| Parties | FRED GRUHL v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $21,000 for injuries received after alighting from the train of defendant railway. The separate answers specifically denied that plaintiff was a passenger on the train. The case was tried before Nye, J., who at the close of the testimony granted motions to dismiss the action as to defendants Allen and Daly and denied a motion to direct a verdict in favor of defendant Conway and defendant railway company, and a jury which returned a verdict for $1,300 against defendant Conway and defendant company. Defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, Roeser, J. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment defendant Conway and defendant company appealed. Affirmed.
Carrier -- exchange of tickets -- liability of defendant.
Plaintiff as caretaker, accompanied a carload of live stock shipped by him from Glyndon to South St. Paul over the Great Northern Railway. About the same time he shipped another carload over the defendant's road from Glyndon to the same destination, his assistant Goltz accompanying as caretaker. Each shipping contract provided for the caretaker's return passage upon the carrier's passenger train. Together the two men applied to the ticket agent representing both carriers, at St. Paul Union Station, for return transportation, and each received the proper ticket. It is held:
(1) The person to whom such a return ticket is issued is, when carried thereon, a passenger for hire, entitled to the high degree of care accorded such a person by a common carrier.
(2) The evidence justified the jury in finding that, with the knowledge and consent of the ticket agent, and in his presence, plaintiff and his assistant exchanged these return tickets; that in so doing, and in boarding defendant's passenger train and receiving transportation thereon there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff, or any one concerned, to defraud or to violate any provision of the shipping contract, and that there was, in fact, no substantial violation thereof, and that plaintiff was a passenger for hire and not a trespasser on the trip in question.
C. W. Bunn and D. F. Lyons, for appellants.
Charles S. Marden, for respondent.
Plaintiff secured a judgment against defendant, a common carrier, awarding substantial damages for personal injuries caused by its alleged negligence in carrying plaintiff beyond the station where he was to leave the train on which he was riding. Defendant appeals. There was no motion for a new trial.
If the evidence justifies the conclusion that plaintiff, in riding upon defendant's train, at the time in question, was a passenger and not a trespasser, the judgment is conceded to be unassailable on this appeal.
In the first part of February, 1916, plaintiff, a farmer, stock buyer, and shipper, residing near Glyndon, had two carloads of live stock that he desired to ship to the South St. Paul market. The Great Northern Railway, as well as defendant, operates a railway line between the places mentioned. Plaintiff patronizes both companies. Under the ordinary shipping contracts, one carload of this live stock was delivered to the Great Northern Railway Company, and the other to defendant to be transported as indicated. Plaintiff personally accompanied the Great Northern shipment as caretaker of the stock; and Abe Goltz, plaintiff's assistant, went as caretaker with the stock carried by defendant. Plaintiff was a party to both shipping contracts as consignor, and paid the freight. These contracts contained the usual provision for the return passage of the caretaker of the stock upon the carrier's passenger train, under certain rules in force. It is not deemed necessary to set out these provisions or rules in full. The substance is that only the person actually attending the stock is entitled to transportation back; and, to prevent the misuse of this right, the signature of the caretaker must be indorsed by him on the shipping contract so that the ticket agent, whose duty it is to issue the return ticket, may have some means of satisfying himself of the identity of the person applying for the transportation. On the evening of February 9, 1916, plaintiff in company with Goltz applied to the proper ticket agent, representing both companies, at St. Paul Union Station for return passage, and the special tickets therefor were duly issued. When these were received Goltz stated that Gruhl and he desired to trade tickets so as to get Gruhl home sooner, they laboring under the mistake that defendant's train was due to arrive at Glyndon first. The agent answered that he did not care what they did with those tickets. They then and there exchanged them, and repaired to the respective trains then about to start. Plaintiff testified that he was acquainted with defendant's conductor and trainmen, having often ridden on trains in their charge. The ticket issued to Goltz was by plaintiff tendered to and accepted by the conductor, and the latter placed the customary check slip in the holder above the seat occupied by plaintiff in the smoker. He testified that this check slip was not taken up as the stop was made for Glyndon, nor was the station called out, and he did not know that his destination had been reached until the train was leaving the depot, when he hurriedly walked to the door with his luggage. The brakeman then noticed him and stopped the train, but would not back up so as to let plaintiff alight at the platform. Plaintiff got off, and, in walking back to the station, fell over some wires, as he claims, receiving the severe injuries for which the damages were awarded.
The trial court instructed the jury, in substance, that if plaintiff fraudulently impersonated Goltz and thereby obtained the ride on defendant's train there could be no recovery, but if they should find that plaintiff was riding upon a stockman's ticket issued and accepted without fraud or misrepresentation and which was used by plaintiff in good faith as railway fare then the company owed him the same duty of care as any passenger for hire. If, "there was an honest mistake made by Mr. Gruhl and also a mistake on the part of the railway company in reference to the use of this ticket by Mr. Gruhl, that is, that both parties were mistaken, in good faith, in reference to that ticket, and that the ticket was recognized as valid and proper fare, used in good faith by the plaintiff, then the fact that it may...
To continue reading
Request your trial