Holweger v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
| Citation | 130 N.W.2d 354,269 Minn. 83 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 39144,39144 |
| Parties | Donald F. HOLWEGER, Appellant, v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court
1--2. Where plaintiff's actions under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 51 to 60, were based upon claim that defendant carrier had been negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work, and where evidence on this issue was sufficient to create jury question thereon, Held court's refusal to give plaintiff's requested instructions with respect to this theory of his actions constituted reversible error.
3. Court's general instruction in such actions that defendant would be liable for injuries resulting in whole or in part from negligence of its officers or by reason of any defects in its appliances, track, roadbed, or other equipment, Held too general or abstract as against specific instructions requested on plaintiff's theory of case; and that absence of such instructions may have led jury to discard plaintiff's theory of defendant's negligence.
4. Under comparative negligence doctrine any evidence bearing on quantity or quality of negligence of the parties or which characterizes such negligence is relevant. Accordingly, it is held that here the court erred in rejecting evidence proffered by plaintiff which had reference to length of time unsafe conditions had existed in area where he was required to work, since such evidence would bear directly upon quantity and quality of defendant's negligence; and because in any event defendant's actual or imputed knowledge of such conditions was essential in establishing its negligence.
5. Where opinion evidence of plaintiff's fellow employee offered to prove that an automatic coupler involved in plaintiff's action under Federal Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 to 16, was defective was rejected by court because there was no showing that he had personal knowledge of coupler; had ever seen or operated it; or knew anything about equipment to which it had been attached or about other conditions prevailing at the time of its use, Held trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting such evidence because foundation for it was insufficient.
6. Other assignments of error considered and held not sufficient to justify a reversal, particularly since in new trial ordered conditions giving rise thereto in all likelihood will not again be present.
John B. Halloran and James L. Alfveby, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Anthony Kane, D. E. Engle, Richard V. Wicka, St. Paul, for respondent.
Appeal by plaintiff, Donald F. Holweger, of Grand Forks, North Dakota, from an order of the District Court of Clay County denying his motion to vacate and set aside a verdict in his favor in the sum of $10,000 against his employer, Great Northern Railway Company, and to grant him a new trial. The proceedings involve four separate causes of action--three under the Federal Employers Liability Act 1 and one under the Federal Safety Appliance Acts 2--which were tried together. The verdict constituted the jury's total award in all such causes of action and is regarded as inadequate by plaintiff.
Plaintiff's claims in the four causes of action are as follows:
(1) On October 13, 1960, while he was working for defendant as a switchman, his left foot became caught in a hole or depression under a switch tie maintained by defendant so that his left knee was wrenched. (This action was brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.)
(2) On October 28, 1960, while working for defendant as a switchman and just after leaving defendant's yard office, he stumbled over a plant on premises maintained by defendant and again wrenched his left knee. (This action was brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.)
(3) On December 11, 1960, at about 10:30 p.m. while working for defendant as a switchman, he was required to get off a moving train and walk some 15 or 20 feet in the opposite direction to signal the engineer that a stop was required and while so walking he stepped into a rut left by a caterpillar tractor in an unlighted area and again wrenched his knee. (This action was brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.)
(4) On November 12, 1960, while working for defendant as a switchman, in attempting to pull out the pin of an automatic coupler on a freight car, he was required to exert unusual pressure because of defects in the coupler so that he lost his balance and again fell and wrenched his left knee. (This action was brought under the Federal Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C.A. § 2.)
It is agreed by the parties that in the actions brought under the Federal Employers Liability Act the doctrine of comparative negligence was applicable, 3 and that the defense of assumption of risk was not available; 4 and that in the action based on violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Acts the defenses of assumption of risk 5 and contributory negligence 6 were not available if it were established that the automatic coupler involved was defective and hence being used in violation of 45 U.S.C.A. § 2, at the time defendant was operating it.
Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was based upon the grounds (1) that the court erred in failing to give his requested instructions relative to defendant's duty to exercise reasonable care to provide him with a reasonably safe place to work; (2) that the court erred in excluding evidence relative to the time during which defendant knew or should have known of the unsafe conditions which he claimed existed where he was required to work; (3) that the court erred in excluding opinions of his fellow employee that the automatic coupler with which he was required to work was defective; (4) that in the course of the trial certain procedures as hereinafter set forth constituted misconduct or had the effect of depriving him of a fair trial; and (5) that all such errors resulted in an inadequate verdict.
After the parties had rested, plaintiff's counsel requested instructions as follows:
'* * * that at the time and place of the happening of the accidents, in question, the defendant, acting through its agents, servants and employees, was required to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe place for the plaintiff to work.'
'A duty to furnish a safe place to work includes the duty of making reasonable inspections to discover defects or insufficiencies in * * * appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, works, or other equipment as may constitute a danger to defendant's employees * * *.'
'* * * defendant * * * was under the duty to maintain and control the area and railroad yards involved in this accident, including its appliances, track, railroad ties, roadbed, work and other equipment for switching operations * * *.'
In the instructions given, the court correctly charged the jury as follows:
'It is the * * * federal law, that it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line a car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of (a) man going between the ends of the cars.
'Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in interstate commerce shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce, for such injuries resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents or employes of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to the negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track, roadbed, or other equipment.
'* * * such employe shall not be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where such injury or death resulted in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier; and no employe shall be held to have assumed the risks of his employment in any case where the violation by such common carrier of any statute enacted for the safety of employes contributed to the injury or death of such employe.
'The defendant railroad company is not an insurer or guarantor of plaintiff's safety, and the mere fact of injury is not alone evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.'
After these instructions, the court asked counsel if there were any omissions or misstatements, to which plaintiff's attorney replied:
'If the Court please, at this time the plaintiff wishes to make the written instructions submitted to the court a part of the file in this case, and at the same time respectfully excepts to the Court's failure to give to the jury instructions numbered * * * 3, * * * 8, (and) 9 (above set forth) * * *.'
Plaintiff contends further that during the trial certain procedures occurred, to which exceptions were taken, which constituted grounds for reversal. These may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kapsis v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
...(the jury evaluates and compares the "gravity of the fault" and the "blameworthiness of the tortfeasor"); Holweger v. Great N. Ry. Co., 269 Minn. 83, 130 N.W.2d 354, 361 (1964) (the extent of defendant's knowledge of unsafe conditions was relevant with respect to both the quantity and quali......
-
State v. Bauer
...has wide discretion in determining the sufficiency of the foundation for admitting opinion testimony. Holweger v. Great Northern Ry., 269 Minn. 83, 95, 130 N.W.2d 354, 362 (1964). In the present case, Dr. Plunkett's knowledge of appellant's physical abilities was gained from a 10-minute exa......
-
In re Welfare of Child of J.K.T.
...court has wide latitude in determining the adequacy of foundation for a lay witness's opinion testimony. Holweger v. Great N. Ry., 269 Minn. 83, 95, 130 N.W.2d 354, 362 (1964). Here, the foundation established that the foster mother, a former nurse, had cared for J.M. for almost a year and ......
-
Lambert v. Abid
...who admitted that his view of an accident was obstructed. Id. at 43-44, 235 N.W.2d at 368. Similarly, in Holweger v. Great N. Ry. Co., 269 Minn. 83, 130 N.W.2d 354 (1964), the supreme court affirmed the district court's exclusion of testimony about the defective nature of a railroad part on......
-
Federal employer negligence statutes
...Railroad , 291 So. 2d 656 (Fla. D.C. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied , 306 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1974); Holweger v. Great Northern Railway , 130 N.W.2d 354, 269 Minn. 83 (1964). Federal Circuits First: The employer’s duty to maintain a safe work-place does not require all dangers to be eradicated,......