Haggerty v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co.

Decision Date11 November 1905
Docket Number2,231.
Citation141 F. 966
PartiesHAGGERTY v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Frank D. Larrabee (Mathias Baldwin, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

H. H Field (F. W. Root, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and PHILIPS and CARLAND, District judges.

CARLAND District Judge.

Haggerty sued the railway company to recover damages for a personal injury received by him while in the employ of the company. At the close of all the testimony the trial court, on motion of counsel for the company, directed a verdict in its favor, to which ruling counsel for Haggerty excepted, and the case is here on writ of error to review such ruling.

The facts in the case, as they appear from the record, are substantially as follows: The yards of the railway company at Minneapolis, Minn., are on a general level with the top surface of the ties upon which the railway rails are laid. In order to carry off surface water which may accumulate upon the yards either from the fall of rain or the melting of ice and snow, the section men of the company had for four or five years prior to the date when Haggerty received his injury excavated from 20 to 25 ditches or drains underneath the several tracks lying upon said yards and between the ties upon which the rails of the track are laid. These drains or ditches underneath the tracks occupy generally the space between the ties as to width and the thickness of the ties as to depth. The drains are necessary to carry off water from the yards of the company so that said yards may not become muddy and slippery in mild weather, and that the standing water may not freeze and prevent the operation of the switches in cold weather. The drains during the summer fill up to some extent, and in the winter are filled up with ice and snow to such an extent that in the springtime, when the snow and ice upon the yards begin to melt, these drains have to be cleaned, so as to let the water escape into larger ditches or culverts, which are covered. The drains in question have never been covered; it being shown by the evidence that to cover them is impracticable, for the reason that, if they were covered, then the water flowing through them from thawing snow and ice would freeze and fill the drains rendering it necessary to clean them out daily.

On the 6th day of March, 1904, Haggerty was a night switch tender in the employ of the company and performing his duties as such switch tender at the yards in question. He had worked for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Mangan
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1908
    ...would have taken the risk. The promise to repair does not excuse him. 77 N.E. 1120; 220 Ill. 614; 91 S.W. 161; 115 Mo.App. 520; 63 A. 719; 141 F. 966; 55 Ark. 2. He assumed the risk in stepping off at a place known to be dangerous when he could have stepped off at some other place just as w......
  • Shidloski v. New York, C. & St. L. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1933
    ... ... New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, a Corporation, Appellant No. 31159 Supreme Court of Missouri October ... Ry. Co. v. Collingsworth, 32 ... F.2d 561; Boldt v. Railroad Co., 245 U.S. 441; ... Haggerty v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 141 F ... 966. (a) An employee is presumed to see and know ... ...
  • Woodward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 25, 1906
    ...& N.R. Co., 66 C.C.A. 598, 133 F. 904; Haggerty v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. (C.C.A.; decided at the September, 1905, term), 141 F. 966; Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Van Elderen 137 F. 557, 569, 571; Chapman v. Yellow Poplar Lumber Co., 32 C.C.A. 402, 404, 89 F. 903, 905; New Yo......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Goins
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1909
    ...appellant. The court should have directed a verdict for appellant because there was no negligence in the maintenance of the ditch or drain. 141 F. 966. Also because the ditch or drain obvious to most casual observation. 41 Ark. 549; 74 Ark. 376; 95 U.S. 697; 57 Ark. 503; 35 Ark. 602; 82 Ark......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT