Holmgren v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

Decision Date10 May 1895
Citation61 Minn. 85,63 N.W. 270
PartiesHOLMGREN v. ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Action to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate (a boy aged about 11 1/2 years) at a street crossing in the city of St. Paul, the negligence charged being (1) running its car at a dangerous rate of speed, and (2) failing to give proper warning of its approach to the street crossing. Held that, upon the evidence, the questions of defendant's negligence (in both of the matters charged) and of the contributory negligence of the deceased were for the jury.

2. The degree of care required at the crossing of a highway and an ordinary steam railway, as, for example, in looking up and down the track, is not necessarily the test of care required in crossing the track of a street railway on a public street. Shea v. Railway Co., 52 N. W. 902, 50 Minn. 395, followed.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Hascal R. Brill, Judge.

Action by Swan Holmgren, administrator, against the St. Paul City Railway Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Munn, Boyeson & Thygeson, for appellant.

Kueffner, Fauntleroy & Searles, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate. The accident occurred at or near the intersection of Tenth and Olive streets, in the city of St. Paul. The defendant is a street-railway company operating lines of electric street cars. The car which caused the injury was running eastward along Tenth street. The deceased, who, with a number of other choir boys, had come out of St. Paul's church, was crossing Tenth street (going northward) near the easterly intersection of that street with Olive street, when he was struck and killed by the car. The negligence charged against defendant was (1) running its car at a dangerous rate of speed; (2) not giving any proper warning of its approach to the street crossing. The answer of the defendant denied the negligence charged, and alleged that the injury was caused solely by the negligence of the deceased himself.

The defendant's various assignments of error may all be summed up under two general heads: First, that the court erred in leaving to the jury the question whether defendant gave proper warning of the approach of the car by ringing the bell; and, second, that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. The undisputed evidence is that the car either stopped or “slowed up” at the westerly intersection of Tenth and Olive streets, in order to let the conductor alight from the front, and pass to the rear of the car, which was crowded with passengers. We are of the opinion that the evidence is conclusive that the bell was rung as the car approached the westerly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Spiking v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 25, 1908
    ...... while attempting to cross the street railway tracks on one of. the streets in Salt Lake City. The acts of negligence charged. against the defendants, appellants here, are: The omission to. ...1067, 22 L. R. A. 374;. Lawler v. Hartford St. Ry. , 72 Conn. 74, 43 A. 545;. Shea v. St. Paul City Ry. , 50 Minn. 395, 52 N.W. 902; Holmgren v. Twin City Rapid Tr. Ry. , 61 Minn. 85, 63 N.W. ......
  • Bremer v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • March 12, 1909
    ......Union, 39 App. Div. 497-500, 57 N. Y. Supp. 326; Sesselmann v. Metropolitan, 65 App. Div. 484, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1010; O'Neil v. Dry Dock, 129 N. Y. 125, 29 N. E. 84, 26 Am. St. 512. This is certainly the rule in this state. Shea v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 395, 399, 52 N. W. 902; Holmgren v. Twin City R. T. Co., 61 Minn. 85, 63 N. W. 270; Watson v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 551, 55 N. W. 742; Kennedy . Page 331 . v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 59 Minn. 45, 60 N. W. 810; Smith v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 95 Minn. 254, 104 N. W. 16. .         The mutual rights of ......
  • Bremer v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • March 12, 1909
    ......U. R. R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 497-500, 57 N. Y. Supp. 326; Sesselman v. Railroad Co., 65 App. Div. 484,72 N. Y. Supp. 1010;O'Neil v. Company, 129 N. Y. 125, 29 N. E. 84,26 Am. St. Rep. 512. This is certainly the rule in this state. Shea v. St. Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 399,52 N. W. 902;Holmgren v. T. C. R. T. Co., 61 Minn. 87,63 N. W. 270;Watson v. Railway Co., 53 Minn. 551, 55 N. W. 742; Kennedy v. Railway Co., 59 Minn. 45, 60 N. W. 810;Smith v. R. T. Co., 95 Minn. 254, 104 N. W. 16.         The mutual rights of travelers and street cars to use public streets imposes the duty on ......
  • Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 23, 1905
    ...... was that immediately prior to the collision the defendant was. operating a car in the city at a dangerous rate of speed,. that it failed to control the car in accordance with its. legal ... Ill. 615, 69 N.E. 570; Chicago v. Ahler, 107. Ill.App. 397; [95 Minn. 257] O'Connell v. St. Paul. City Ry. Co., 64 Minn. 466, 67 N.W. 363. . .          But the. duty rested upon the ...96, 85 N.W. 947;. Peterson v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 90 Minn. 52,. 55, 95 N.W. 751; Holmgren v. Twin City Rapid Transit. Co., 61 Minn. 85, 63 N.W. 270. Indeed, a traveler at a. crossing may ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT