Holmgren v. Twin City Rapid Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1895
• Docket Number: Nos. 9165 - (22).,s. 9165 - (22).
• Citation: 61 Minn. 85
• Parties: SWAN HOLMGREN, Administrator, v. TWIN CITY RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

61 Minn. 85

SWAN HOLMGREN, Administrator, v. TWIN CITY RAPID TRANSIT COMPANY.¹

Nos. 9165 - (22).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 10, 1895.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict of $1,000 for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Munn, Boyeson & Thygeson, for appellant.

Kueffner & Fauntleroy, 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 line of Olive street; and, if this had been the only fact upon which the question of proper warning depended, we think it would have been error for the court to leave it to the jury. But a careful examination of the evidence satisfies us that it was a question for the jury whether any warning was given when or after the car again started up to cross Olive street; and if the jury should find (as they might) that no such warning was given, then, in view of the fact that this was at a much-frequented...