Howe v. Minneapolis, Saint Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company
| Decision Date | 10 July 1895 |
| Docket Number | 9445-(128) |
| Parties | CASSIUS C. M. HOWE v. MINNEAPOLIS, SAINT PAUL & SAULT SAINTE MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Elliott, J., denying a motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
At the trial, after the charge to the jury, defendant's counsel asked permission to take exception to the written portions of the charge, when he had examined the same, and the court replied, 'Certainly, you can do so." Such leave was granted without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff or his counsel, who were present, but did not hear the same. After the jury had returned a verdict and the court had adjourned for the day, defendant's counsel dictated to the stenographer who had reported the charge certain exceptions thereto, which were, at the time of the settlement of the case, allowed and inserted over plaintiff's objections.
Alfred H. Bright, George B. Young, and M. B. Koon, for appellant.
It was negligence for plaintiff to rest his safety on a look at 150 feet from the crossing under the existing conditions, even if it be assumed that the train was not visible when it reached that point. Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 165; Abbett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 30 Minn. 482, 16 N.W. 266; Mantel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R Co., 33 Minn. 62, 21 N.W. 853; Rheiner v. Chicago St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 36 Minn. 170, 30 N.W. 548; Harris v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 37 Minn. 47 33 N.W. 12; Marty v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R Co., 38 Minn. 108, 35 N.W. 670; Weyl v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 40 Minn. 350, 42 N.W. 24. The case at bar is more nearly analogous to the above cases than to any of the following, which were held to be for the jury: Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 28 Minn. 103, 9 N.W. 575; Kelly v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 29 Minn. 1, 11 N.W. 67; Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 29 Minn. 465, 13 N.W. 902; Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 526, 18 N.W. 651; Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 Minn. 214, 20 N.W. 93; Hutchinson v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 Minn. 398, 21 N.W. 212; Bolinger v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 36 Minn. 418, 31 N.W. 856; Beanstrom v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 46 Minn. 193, 48 N.W. 778; Hendrickson v. Great Northern R. Co., 49 Minn. 245, 51 N.W. 1044; Miller v. Truesdale, 56 Minn. 274, 57 N.W. 661; Struck v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 58 Minn. 298, 59 N.W. 1022. The principles laid down in these cases have been reinforced in cases where foot passengers were injured. Donaldson v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 293; Rogstad v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 31 Minn. 208, 17 N.W. 287; De Kay v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 41 Minn. 178, 43 N.W. 182; Heffinger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. R. Co., 43 Minn. 503, 45 N.W. 1131; Carney v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 46 Minn. 220, 48 N.W. 912; Clark v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 47 Minn. 380, 50 N.W. 365; Studley v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 48 Minn. 249, 51 N.W. 115; Magner v. Truesdale, 53 Minn. 436, 55 N.W. 607; Hickey v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 60 Minn. 119, 61 N.W. 893. A plaintiff is not excused from a charge of negligence for not seeing a train simply because some part of it is obscured. Mantel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., supra; Freeman v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co., 74 Mich. 86, 41 N.W. 872. It must be held either that plaintiff did not look, or that his look was careless. Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., supra; Miller v. Truesdale, supra, and cases cited; Heininger v. Great Northern R. Co., 59 Minn. 458, 61 N.W. 558. If plaintiff was gazing at smoke to the east, that was no excuse for his otherwise gross negligence. It is not every diverting circumstance, even near by, that excuses men from the use of their senses when entering upon a railroad track. Donaldson v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., supra; Rogstad v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., supra; Abbett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., supra; Marty v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., supra; De Kay v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., supra; Heffinger v. Minneapolis, L. & M. R. Co., supra; Magner v. Truesdale, supra; Delaney v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 33 Wis. 67; Kearney v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 47 Wis. 144, 2 N.W. 82; Olsen v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 81 Wis. 41, 50 N.W. 412, 1096; Gebhard v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 79 Mich. 586, 44 N.W. 1045; Guta v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 81 Mich. 291, 45 N.W. 821; Gardner v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co., 97 Mich. 240, 56 N.W. 603; Butts v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 98 Mo. 272, 11 S.W. 754; Elliott v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 150 U.S. 245, 14 S.Ct. 85; McKinney v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 282, 58 N.W. 386; Greenwood v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 124 Pa. 572, 17 A. 188; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Hedges, 118 Ind. 5, 20 N.E. 530; Fletcher v. Fitchburg R. Co., 149 Mass. 127, 21 N.E. 302; Murray v. Pontchartrain R. Co., 31 La. Ann. 490; Baxter v. Troy & B. R. Co., 41 N.Y. 502; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627; Ormsbee v. Boston & P. R. Co., 14 R. I. 102; Smith v. Wabash R. Co., 141 Ind. 92, 40 N.E. 270; Cullen v. Delaware & H. C. R. Co., 113 N.Y. 667, 21 N.E. 716; Hoag v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 111 N.Y. 199, 18 N.E. 648; Brickell v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 120 N.Y. 290, 24 N.E. 449; Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N.Y. 228; Crescent Township v. Anderson, 114 Pa. 643, 8 A. 379. Had the persons in the wagon all been killed, there could have been no recovery by their administrators. It would have been conclusively presumed that the exercise of ordinary care would have prevented the collision. Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., supra; Carney v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., supra; Harris v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., supra; Magner v. Truesdale, supra; Haetsch v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 87 Wis. 304, 58 N.W. 393; Schofield v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 114 U.S. 615, 5 S.Ct. 1125, citing Railway Co. v. Houston, 95 U.S. 697. What happened when the horses jumped, whether plaintiff then did all he could to prevent the accident or not, is immaterial, because it was his duty to see the train before getting so close as to be unable to prevent a collision. Schofield v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., supra; Haetsch v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., supra; Austin v. New Jersey Steamboat Co., 43 N.Y. 75, 80.
Plaintiff was not excused from the duty to look and listen because he was a passenger. Hoag v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., supra; Brickell v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., supra; Dyer v. Erie R. Co., supra; Crescent Township v. Anderson, supra; Dean v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 129 Pa. 514, 18 A. 718; Brannen v. Kokomo Gravel-Road Co., 115 Ind. 115, 17 N.E. 202; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Kutac, 72 Tex. 643, 11 S.W. 127; Allyn v. Boston & A. R. Co., 105 Mass. 77; Beach, Contributory Negligence (2d Ed.) § 115.
Welch & Welch and John W. Arctander, for respondent.
The facts do not show contributory negligence as matter of law. Wright v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 94 Ky. 114, 21 S.W. 581; Grostick v. Detroit, L. & N. R. Co., 90 Mich. 594, 51 N.W. 667, 677; Cleveland, C., C. & I. R. Co. v. Harrington, 131 Ind. 426, 30 N.E. 37, 40; Kellogg v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 79 N.Y. 73; Greany v. Long Island R. Co., 101 N.Y. 419, 5 N.E. 425, 427; Moore v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. (Super. Buff.) 21 N.Y.S. 436, 439; Shaber v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 28 Minn. 103, 105, 109, 9 N.W. 575; Kelly v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 29 Minn. 1, 4, 11 N.W. 67; Faber v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 29 Minn. 465, 468, 469, 13 N.W. 902; Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 526, 531, 532, 18 N.W. 651; Howard v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., 32 Minn. 214, 216, 20 N.W. 93; Iltis v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 40 Minn. 273, 280, 41 N.W. 1040; Hendrickson v. Great Northern R. Co., 49 Minn. 245, 51 N.W. 1044; Struck v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 58 Minn. 298, 59 N.W. 1022. A prudent man's attention may be diverted so that he will fail to look and listen, and it is proper to leave it to the jury whether it was negligence so to fail. Shearman & Redfield, Negligence, § 90, n.; Barstow v. City of Berlin, 34 Wis. 357; Buswell, Personal Injuries, § 161; Continental Imp. Co. v. Stead, 95 U.S. 161; Piper v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 77 Wis. 247, 46 N.W. 165; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Dignan, 56 Ill. 487; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nowicki, 148 Ill. 29, 35 N.E. 358; Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 120 Mo. 635, 23 S.W. 1061; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Cox, 8 Ind.App. 29, 35 N.E. 183.
Plaintiff was a passenger, not responsible for the driver's negligence, and it was not his duty to look and listen. The driver's negligence could not be imputed to plaintiff. Little v. Hackett, 116 U.S. 366, 6 S.Ct. 391 (Hack); Robinson v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 66 N.Y. 11 (Buggy); Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N.Y. 228 (Wagon); Masterson v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 84 N.Y. 247 (Wagon); McCallum v. Long Island R. Co., 38 Hun, 569 (Street Car); Bennett v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 36 N. J. Law, 225 (Street Car); New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. Law, 161 (Hack); Transfer Co. v. Kelly, 36 Ohio St. 86 (Street Car); O'Toole v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 158 Pa. 99, 27 A. 737 (Street Car); Follman v. City of Mankato, 35 Minn. 522, 29 N.W. 317 (Buggy); Pitts v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 29 N.Y.S. 871, 79 Hun, 546.
This was an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision between a farm wagon, on which he was riding, coming from the north, and one of defendant's trains coming from the west. The collision occurred about 10 o'clock in the morning of December 29, 1892, at the crossing of the Osseo road with defendant's main line near Minneapolis. The trial resulted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial