Hahn v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23626.,23626.
• Citation: 157 Minn. 354,196 N.W. 257
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: HAHN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

157 Minn. 354

196 N.W. 257

HAHN

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

No. 23626.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 14, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.

Action by Arthur C. Hahn against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and from an order overruling a motion for new trial plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence examined, and found that it fails to prove negligence.

Duty of railway company to have instrumentalities reasonably safe for the performance of the functions for which they are designed.

An injury arising out of the improper use of instrumentalities does not justify the inference of negligence. Douglas, Kennedy & Kennedy, of St. Paul, for appellant.

F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb and A. C. Erdall, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.

WILSON, C. J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of the act of plaintiff getting off of a moving locomotive. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant railway company as a checker in its yards at La Crosse, Wis. The company maintains a signal tower, with the usual equipment connected therewith, for the purpose of operating an interlocking signal and switching system. A portion of this equipment is outside the tower building, adjacent to it, and necessarily located as near the track as possible. This portion of the equipment is housed in a box to protect it from the elements and from obstacles that may fall into the machinery. The housing box here involved sets up against the side of the tower and extends in length the width of the tower, which is about 25 feet, and about 5 feet in width, made out of planks, and having a slope from the tower and toward the tracks of nearly 5 inches in 5 feet for the purpose of drainage. At one end of this housing is a step, and, in its general appearance, it resembles a platform. Pipes and rods, which are a part of this system, but which do not extend upward as high as the machinery in the housing, extend along on the ground for a distance from each end of the housing.

The housing is too short to be safely used as a platform by men alighting from moving trains. The place where the pipe and rods are located is also unsafe.

Plaintiff was on night duty, and was directed to ride an engine up to the tower, and there deliver an interchange report. He got on the engine for this purpose. His foreman and two switchmen also got on. The engineer was going some 200 or 300 feet beyond the tower where he would stop. This the plaintiff did not know, and he did not make his own intentions, as to his own plans or movements, known to any of the other men on the engine.

When approaching near the tower the plaintiff stepped down the steps of the engine on the left-hand side, which was on the tower side, apparently to better see their location, in preparation for getting off when they reached their destination. The foreman also immediately stepped down on the steps, and stood behind the plaintiff, but he did not know that plaintiff intended to get off before the engine stopped, and he ...