Hooper v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 July 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,055 - (188) |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 440,80 Minn. 400 |
| Parties | JULIA HOOPER v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for McLeod county by plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of William H. Hooper, deceased to recover $5,000 on account of his death. The case was tried before Cadwell, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount demanded. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Railway -- Failure to Give Customary Signal -- Negligence.
The movement of an engine and train, without giving the customary signals of warning, such as ringing the bell or blowing the whistle, constitutes negligence sufficient to establish liability against a railroad company, when such omitted signals were the cause of injury.
Reliance of Fellow Servant upon Signal.
It is not negligence for a servant working in a hazardous place to rely and act upon the supposition that his fellow servants who should give customary warnings of danger, will do so, and not neglect or omit their duties in that respect.
Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
Held, upon the evidence in this case, that the failure of an engineer to give the proper and customary signals of danger made an issue for the jury, and that their verdict in behalf of plaintiff is supported by the evidence.
W. E. Dodge, for appellant.
F. D. Larrabee and C. G. Odquist, for respondent.
This action is brought by plaintiff, as administratrix, to recover for the alleged negligence of defendant in causing the death of her husband. The plaintiff's intestate, William H. Hooper, was an employee of defendant, serving as brakeman on one of its freight trains running through Eagle Bend, a small station on its line of road, where the accident which caused his death occurred October 24, 1898. Plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant, after a motion for a new trial, which was denied, attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the jury upon two grounds: (1) That there is no evidence of defendant's negligence; (2) that the evidence establishes the contributory negligence of plaintiff's intestate.
In disposing of this appeal, the well-established rule must be adopted that we are to accept the most favorable inferences in support of the verdict which the evidence will authorize, and it is now the acknowledged doctrine of this court that the plaintiff's intestate is entitled, in the consideration of his conduct at the time of the accident, to every fair and reasonable justification in its favor that is possible under the circumstances. Hendrickson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 245, 51 N.W. 1044; Struck v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 58 Minn. 298, 59 N.W. 1022.
Defendant's freight train on which Hooper was engaged as brakeman arrived at Eagle Bend about six o'clock in the evening. It consisted of an engine and twenty-six cars. There was an engineer and a fireman on the engine; there was a full complement of trainmen. Hooper was the middle brakeman, and as such it was his duty to couple and uncouple cars to be set out at way stations. At Eagle Bend there was a main and a side track, ascending to the north on a heavy grade, between forty-five and fifty feet to the mile. The train stopped as usual at the station, where it became necessary to detach the eighteenth car in order to place it upon the side track. This was to be accomplished by making a cut between the eighteenth and nineteenth cars, then pulling the forward portion of the train over a switch, and backing it down upon the side track, where the car was to be left. It was the particular duty of Hooper in this case to make the cut-off.
When the train had stopped, in order to uncouple the car to be set out, he, at the proper time, went between the cars to be uncoupled, intending, without doubt, to pull the pin, as was proper, from the nineteenth car, which was loaded with machinery, but for some cause he pulled the pin from the car ahead. After doing this, he stepped from between the cars and signaled to the engineer to go ahead. This signal was received and acted upon by the engineer, who succeeded in pulling the forward portion of the train so far ahead that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial