Hermeling v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1908
• Citation: 117 N.W. 341,105 Minn. 136
• Parties: HERMELING v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

105 Minn. 136

117 N.W. 341

HERMELING

v.CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 24, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Cottonwood County; P. E. Brown, Judge.

Action by Katie Hermeling, administratrix of Joseph Hermeling, against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company and Charles Wetmore. Verdict for defendants. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff's intestate attempted to cross a railroad track at night in the face of an approaching train, 40 feet away and running at the rate of about 4 miles an hour, of which he was fully aware. He stumbled in the darkness, or was thrown down by the train, and was killed. Held, on this undisputed state of the facts, that he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Larrabee & Davies, for appellant.

James B. Sheehan, for respondents.

BROWN, J.

The facts in this case are as follows: On the night of October 11, 1906, defendant ran a special excursion train from Currie, in Murray county, to Windom, in Cottonwood county, to enable people who so desired to attend a political meeting at the lastnamed place. A special excursion train was also run from St. James to Windom. The lines of defendant's road from Currie and St. James meet at Bingham Lake, and all trains proceed from that point to Windom, on the same track. The Currie track parallels that of the main line at Bingham Lake as it extends through the station yards and past the depot; the main track being immediately adjacent to the station platform. Between the two tracks there is a platform 16 feet wide and about 100 feet long. The platforms are connected by two walks, extending over the main track and used for convenience in passing to trains on the Currie track. These platforms, both that between the main and the Currie track and that adjoining the building, are about on a level with the rails on the track, though the space between the rails is not planked. The bed of the main track is between 6 and 8 inches below the surface of the platforms. On the night in question, at about 8 o'clock, plaintiff's intestate was a passenger on the Currie special, bound for Windom to attend the political meeting. As the train came to a stop at Bingham Lake, he alighted and crossed the main track to the station building, which he entered and there engaged in conversation with an acquaintance. He understood that his train would not depart for Windom until after the arrival of the train from St. James, and he remained at the station until the latter came in. On its approach, and when within 40 feet of the position he occupied on the platform, and coming at about the rate of 4 miles an hour, he attempted to cross the track in front of it to board his train, and in some manner slipped and fell on the track, or was struck and knocked down by the engine, and was run over and killed. Plaintiff, administratrix of deceased's estate, brought this action against both the company and its engineer, alleging that the death of the intestate was occasioned by their negligence. A verdict was directed for defendants on the trial below, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.

It is charged in the complaint that the death of plaintiff's intestate was caused solely by the negligence of defendants, the grounds of which are specifically set out in the pleadings; the principal one being the failure of the company to have the station platform properly lighted on the occasion in question, by reason of which, so the complaint alleges, in attempting to pass over the main track to his train, not being able to see, deceased fell off the platform, as he started to cross the track, and was unable to get out of the way of the approaching train. Whether the company is chargeable with negligence in this respect involves the question whether deceased, while away from his train and at the station building, was a passenger within the meaning of the law, to whom it owed the duty properly to light the platform of its station or to take other affirmative measures for his safety. De Kay v. Railway Co., 41 Minn. 178, 43 N. W. 182,4 L. R. A. 632, 16 Am. St. Rep. 687. We are not...