Havel v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Citation | 139 N.W. 137,120 Minn. 195 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1913 |
| Parties | HAVEL v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. KROC v. SAME. |
120 Minn. 195
139 N.W. 137
HAVEL
v.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO.
KROC
v.
SAME.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan. 3, 1913.
Appeals from District Court, Ramsey County; Oscar Hallam, Judge.
Action by Barbara Havel, administratrix of Vaclay Havel, and by Marie Kroc, administratrix of Rudolph Kroc, against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. The actions were consolidated. Verdicts were returned for plaintiff in each case, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, and defendant appealed in each case. Judgments affirmed.
Evidence in this, a personal injury action, as to the defendant's alleged willful negligence, considered. Held, that the defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict in its favor on the issue as to its willful negligence.
W. H. Bremner, of Minneapolis, Eugene Bryan, of St. Paul, and F. M. Miner, of Minneapolis (Geo. W. Seevers, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.
Moritz Heim, John D. O'Brien, and Dillon J. O'Brien, all of St. Paul, for respondents.
START, C. J.
On the morning of January 16, 1911, at 6:35 o'clock, Vaclay Havel and Rudolph Kroc were walking, as had been their custom and that of others for several years, on the defendant's right of way and tracks from Hopkins to the Monitor Drill Works, near St. Louis Park, where they were and had been employed for some time. When they had reached a point about midway between the towns, they were struck and instantly killed by the defendant's passenger train. The administratrix of the estate of each brought an action in the district court of the county of Ramsey to recover damages sustained by the death of her intestate. The issues in each case were identical, and the two actions were consolidated and tried as one action. The trial court instructed the jury that upon the undisputed evidence each of the intestates was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and submitted to the jury the issue of the defendant's willful negligence as the sole basis for a recovery. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff in each case. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was made by the defendant and denied, and it appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict in each case.
[1][2] The sole question presented by the record is whether, upon the evidence, the alleged willful negligence of the defendant was one of fact to be submitted to the jury, or one for the decision of the trial judge in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder v. Idaho-Washington Northern Railroad
... ... R. A., N. S., ... 254; Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 15 Idaho ... 513, 99 P. 91; 2 Bailey on Personal Injuries, 2d ed., sec ... 504; Havel v. Minneapolis etc. R. Co., 120 Minn ... 195, 139 N.W. 137; Neary v. Northern P. R. Co., 37 Mont. 461, ... 97 P. 944, 19 L. R. A., N. S., 446.) ... ...
- Bryant v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.
-
Bryant v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...defined as a failure to exercise ordinary care after discovering another in a position of peril. Havel v. Minneapolis & St. L.R. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N.W. 137; Sloniker v. Great Northern R. Co., 76 Minn. 306, 79 N.W. 168; 24 Minn.L.Rev. 81. The obligation imposed under this rule extends ......
-
Bryant v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...it has been defined as a failure to exercise ordinary care after discovering another in a position of peril. Havel v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N.W. 137; Sloniker v. Great Northern R. Co., 76 Minn. 306, 79 N.W. 168; 24 Minn.L.Rev. 81. The obligation imposed under this ......