Haff v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Citation: 14 F. 558
• Parties: HAFF v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO. and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

14 F. 558

HAFF v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO. and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

December Term, 1882

Lovely & Morgan, for plaintiff.

J. D Springer, for defendants.

NELSON D.J., (charging jury.)

The issue in this case has been simplified so that it will not be necessary for me to detain you long. I will suggest (as I stated when the testimony was closed) that there is no cause of action against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Company, and your verdict must be in favor of that defendant. That leaves the action to proceed against the Burlington, Cedar Rapids &amp Northern Company.

This suit is brought by the plaintiff, a citizen of Michigan, to recover damages for a personal injury resulting from the negligence, as he claims, of the defendant, the Burlington, Cedar Rapids &amp Northern Company. The injury, resulting in the amputation of a leg, occurred at a railroad crossing in the depot grounds at Albert Lea, in this state, and was inflicted by a locomotive belonging to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Company, and operated by its employes.

These depot grounds are owned by the Minneapolis & St. Louis Company, a corporation created by the laws of the state of Minnesota, and authorized to build and operate a railroad through Albert Lea, in the direction of Fort Dodge, Iowa. The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern, an Iowa corporation operating a road from Burlington, Iowa, to Albert Lea, is authorized by the laws of this state to make running connections with the Minneapolis & St. Louis, and hold a lease of the depot grounds, granting certain rights and privileges thereto. Both roads have running connections, and there is a continuous rail leading from the terminus of one to the other, and both use the same depot grounds and yards. The track where the injury occurred was used in common by both companies. They also ran a through express train from Minneapolis to Chicago; the Minneapolis & St. Louis Company, by its engine, running a train which was made up in Minneapolis to Albert Lea, where this engine is cut off, and the train, taken by an engine belonging to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Company, proceeds south on its way.

The injury being inflicted by a locomotive of the defendant company, it is claimed that it is liable for the injury which the plaintiff received.

The gist of this action is negligence-- the failure to perform a duty the defendant owed to the plaintiff which the law imposed. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages because he was run over and severely injured by a locomotive owned and operated by the defendant. He must prove to you that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury sustained by him before he is entitled to a verdict.

Before proceeding to instruct you upon the law applicable to this case, I would preface my remarks by saying that it is your duty in the consideration of this case to mete out even-handed justice to the parties to this controversy. The fact that the defendant is a corporation entitles it to no less rights at your hands, and to the same measure of justice, as if it was a private individual. And while we must hold a railroad corporation to the strictest accountability in the discharge of its duties and liabilities, we are also to look to it that all persons having contract relations with such corporations (as passengers or others to whom it owes a duty) exercise the requisite care and caution for their safety, as the law requires.

Let us now examine the legal aspect of the case, and, in so doing, I shall only detail such portions of the evidence as are necessary to enable you properly to apply the law. There are some undisputed facts in this case. The plaintiff took the through Chicago train on July 19, 1882, at Waseca for Albert Lea, and arrived at the depot of that station about midnight. The depot is located west of the town, and in order to reach the hotel it is necessary to pass over the main track in going from the depot grounds. The plaintiff had paid his fare to the Minneapolis & St. Louis Company, having purchased a round-trip ticket from Albert Lea to Waseca and return. On his arrival at Albert Lea he entered a depot wagon, owned by the Hall House proprietor, and submitted himself to the control of his driver, who proceeded to make the crossing and pass over it on his way to town. While crossing, or just at the point of crossing, or at some point while making the attempt, a locomotive belonging to the defendant appeared in view, the plaintiff jumped from the wagon, and the injury was inflicted in the manner detailed to you by the evidence.

The defendant, the Burlington, Cedar Rapids Northern Company having by lease the right to use the depot and grounds, and the tracks laid therein, owed the same duty to passengers of the Minneapolis & St. Louis road, who were lawfully at the depot and on the grounds, as it does to its own passengers; and if the injury resulted solely from the careless and negligent manner in which it was its locomotive over the track where the defendant had the right to be, and was invited to cross, it is liable for damages occasioned thereby. It was the plain duty of the defendant to take such precautions to avoid injury to passengers who travel over this crossing as ordinary prudence would suggest. It is urged by plaintiff that the defendant did not exercise the requisite care for his safety, and that it was negligent in not furnishing safe and secure egress from its depot; that it did not use the utmost care in providing against the injury which occurred; and that the injury would not have happened with reasonable precautions...