Harding v. Railway Transfer Company of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 19 July 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,189 - (225) |
| Parties | WILLIAM HARDING v. RAILWAY TRANSFER COMPANY OF MINNEAPOLIS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $20,100 damages for personal injuries. The case was tried before McGee, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant made a motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The court made an order denying the motion for judgment, but granting a new trial unless plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict. Plaintiff consented to the reduction, and defendant appealed from the order. Affirmed.
Injury to Servant upon Mill Track.
The defendant operated a spur track leading to a certain mill for the purpose of switching cars to and from the mill. There were steps leading from the platform of the mill to a point near the track. The track and steps were owned and controlled by the mill company. It was the duty of the plaintiff, as defendant's foreman, to superintend the placing of the cars at the mill, and, in order to do so, it was necessary for him to stand on the steps; and such was the custom of himself and other employees of the defendant. Ice formed and was allowed to remain on the steps, whereby the plaintiff was thrown down and injured while in the discharge of his duty. Held:
Duty of Master -- Ice on Steps Owned by Another.
1. That the track and steps were a part of the instrumentalities of the defendant's business, and between it and its employees, who were required to use them in its business, the latter had the right to treat them as belonging to it, and it was bound to use due care to keep the track and steps in a safe condition, without reference to the question of their actual ownership and the primary right to control them.
Negligence -- Assumption of Risk -- Verdict.
2. That the verdict and special findings of the jury in favor of the plaintiff as to the negligence of the respective parties, and the assumption of the risk of the particular accident by the plaintiff, are sustained by the evidence.
Albert E. Clarke, for appellant.
T. A Garrity and John W. Arctander, for respondent.
The defendant is a transfer company engaged in the business of switching cars between certain mills in the city of Minneapolis and the railroads engaged in traffic to and from the city. It owns no cars, but furnishes the motive power and crews necessary for handling the cars. Nor does it own any tracks, but operates over tracks owned by others. Among the tracks so operated by the defendant was a spur track which runs by the side of the flour mill known as the "Washburn A Mill." From the platform of this mill, leading down near the track, was a stairway, the steps of which (four in all) were eight inches wide and five feet in length. There was a stone arch over the track at the end of the stairway, next to the mill, through which the cars passed when being placed in position alongside the mill. The track and stairway were owned and controlled by the mill company, but the track was operated by the defendant for the purpose of so transferring cars to and from the mill for the mill company.
The plaintiff in this case was the foreman of a crew of men employed by the defendant for so switching the cars. As such foreman it was the duty of the plaintiff to superintend the placing of the cars in the proper position at the mill for loading; and, in order to do so, it was necessary for him to be in a position where he could give signals to, and receive them from, other members of the crew. On the night of March 31, 1899, for the purpose, as he claims, of being in a position to discharge such duty, it was necessary for him to go upon the steps of the stairway; and as he did so he slipped and fell therefrom, solely because of the fact that the steps, by reason of the defendant's negligence, were covered with ice and were in a dangerous condition. He fell between one of the cars and the arch, and was injured, and brought this action to recover damages for his injuries. The jury returned a verdict for him, assessing his damages in the sum of $1,500. The defendant made an alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. The trial court made its order denying the motion for judgment, but granting a new trial unless the plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $900. The defendant appealed from the order.
1. The first contention of the defendant to be considered is that it was not responsible ...
To continue reading
Request your trial