Heron v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1897
• Citation: 71 N.W. 706,68 Minn. 542
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: HERON v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. ET AL.

68 Minn. 542

71 N.W. 706

HERONvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 16, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Under legislative authority (Gen. St. 1894, § 2714) the St. P., M. & M. Ry. Co. leased its road between St. Paul and Hinckley to the G. N. Ry. Co., granting to the latter company the exclusive control and possession of the road. The G. N. Ry. Co., also under legislative authority (Gen. St. 1894, § 2721), granted to the E. Ry. Co. (which owned and operated a road between Hinckley and West Superior) the right to run its train over the road between Hinckley and St. Paul; the G. N. Ry. Co., however, retaining possession and control of the road. The G. N. Ry. Co. negligently permitted to accumulate and remain on the right of way combustible material which was liable to be ignited by sparks and fire thrown from passing engines. The E. Ry. Co. negligently operated an engine attached to one of its trains, by reason whereof sparks and fire escaped from the engine, and fell upon and ignited the combustible material on the right of way. The fire spread, and destroyed a large amount of property on the premises of adjacent landowners. Held: (1) That the St. P., M. & M. Ry. Co. was not liable for the negligence of either the G. N. or the E. Ry. Co.; that the legislative authority to lease the road included by implication exemption from liability for the negligence of the lessee in operating the road, and not involving a breach of the public duties imposed upon the lessor by its charter or the general laws of the state. (2) But the G. N. Ry. Co., which retained control and possession of the road, was liable for the negligence of the E. Ry. Co. in the operation of its train. Authority to grant to another company the privilege of running its trains over the road (the granting company retaining control and possession of the road) does not include by implication exemption from liability for the negligence of the company to which the privilege is granted.

2. Even if the G. N. Ry. Co. was not liable for the negligence of the E. Co. in the operation of its train, it would nevertheless be liable on the ground that the injury was caused by the concurring negligence of the two companies,-of the E. in the operation of its train, and of the G. N. in permitting combustible material to remain on the right of way.

Appeal from district court, Mille Lacs county; L. L. Baxter, Judge.

Action by John B. Heron against the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company. From an order overruling demurrers to the complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed as to the latter defendant, and reversed as to the former.

M. D. Grover and W. R. Begg, for appellants.

J. L. Brady, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The material allegations of the complaint are as follows: The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company owned a line of railway between St. Paul and the village of Hinckley. The Eastern Railway Company owned and operated a line of railway between Hinckley and West Superior. The first-named company had leased its road to the Great Northern Railway Company for 999 years. Under this lease the Great Northern Railway Company was operating the road, and had possession of the right of way on which the road was built. The Eastern Railway Company was operating and running its trains over this same road under a license from or an agreement with the Great Northern Railway Company. It was the duty of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba and the Great Northern Railway Companies to keep the right of way free from grass, leaves, and other combustible material which might be ignited by sparks or fire from passing engines, and to see that all engines passing over the road were properly constructed, kept in good repair, and carefully handled. The two last-named companies negligently suffered large quantities of grass, leaves, and other combustible material to accumulate on the right of way. The Eastern Railway Company negligently ran and operated over the road (owned by the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company and leased by the Great Northern Railway Company) an engine which was defectively constructed, out of repair, and negligently handled, by reason whereof large quantities of sparks and fire were thrown from the engine, which fell upon and ignited the dry grass, leaves, and other combustible material already referred to on the right of way, which fire spread, and ran over upon the adjacent lands, and destroyed the property for which a recovery is sought in this action against all three defendants. The St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba and Great Northern Railway Companies interposed separate demurrers to the complaint, each upon the ground that it did not state a cause of action. Each company appealed from an order overruling its demurrer.

We construe the allegations of the complaint as meaning that under the lease from the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company the Great Northern Railway Company has and is entitled to the exclusive control and possession of the leased road, including the entire right of way; that, although the Great Northern Railway Company has given the Eastern Railway Company a license to run its trains over the road between St. Paul and the village of Hinckley, the Great Northern Railway Company itself still retains control and possession of the road, including the right of way. The allegation that it was the duty of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company to keep the right of way free from grass, leaves, and other combustible material, and to see that the engines run over the road were properly constructed, kept in repair, and carefully handled, is a mere conclusion of law, based evidently upon the assumption that the duty continued notwithstanding its lease and surrender of possession and control of the road to the Great Northern Railway Company. The allegation that it was the duty of the Great Northern Railway Company to see that all engines run over the road were in safe condition and properly handled is, as to engines operated by the Eastern Railway Company, also a mere conclusion of law, based on the assumption that such duty still rested upon it notwithstanding its agreement with that company, and irrespective of any personal negligence of its own, for none is alleged; there being no allegation that the Great Northern Railway Company had any knowledge that the engine of the Eastern Railway Company was in a defective and unsafe condition, or was being negligently handled. It is also to be noted that the acts complained of constitute merely a breach of duty to adjacent property owners in the manner of operating the road, and not a breach of any duty owing to the public by the railway companies as common carriers. The lease of the road by the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company to the Great Northern Railway Company was expressly authorized by statute. Gen. St. 1894, § 2714. So, also, was the agreement between the Great Northern Railway Company and the Eastern Railway Company under which the latter ran its trains over the road, the two roads constituting a continuous and connected line between St. Paul and West Superior. Gen. St. 1894, § 2721.

1. We shall consider first the...