Hughes v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 July 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21719.,21719. |
| Citation | 146 Minn. 268,178 N.W. 605 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. MINNEAPOLIS ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.
Action by James M. Hughes, as father of Theodore R. Hughes, a minor, against the Minneapolis Street Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff, his motion for a new trial because the damages were inadequate was denied, and defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and a new trial granted.
Syllabus by the Court
There is evidence to sustain a finding that the motorman of a street car was negligent in driving his car 25 miles an hour in the vicinity of crowded public baths, and in failing to observe the approach of plaintiff.
The evidence is not conclusive that plaintiff, a boy of 11, was negligent in crossing the street car track without observing the approach of the car. The standard by which his conduct is to be judged is that of the ordinarily prudent boy of 11.
The damages awarded plaintiff are so inadequate as to require a new trial. Kingman, Cross & Cant, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
R. T. Boardman, of Minneapolis (W. D. Dwyer, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for respondent.
Theodore R. Hughes, whom we will designate as plaintiff, was injured by a street car on Calhoun boulevard in the outskirts of Minneapolis. His father brought an action in his behalf for damages and had a verdict for $1,000. Plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground that the damages were inadequate, and defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial and granted defendant's motion for judgment. Plaintiff appeals.
Calhoun boulevard, from the built up portion of the city westerly to Lake Calhoun, is a broad thoroughfare, with street car tracks in the center and a wide driveway on either side. On each driveway, the traffic runs both ways. The space occupied by the tracks is parked and curbed. Vehicles cannot easily cross it. Pedestrians may easily cross. For half a mile there are no crosswalks. To the south of Calhoun boulevard is Lake Calhoun, and to the north park property, or at least unoccupied property. The street cars approach the bathhouse from the city around a curve and over an elevated bridge. The approach to the bathhouse is down grade. For about 400 feet in front on the bathhouse, there is an iron fence between the east-bound and west-bound tracks. A gate in this fence conducts people from the northerly track to the bathhouse on the south. This arrangement is to prevent the crowds from passing promiscuously over the tracks.
On the afternoon of July 16, 1917, plaintiff, a boy 11 years old, and two other boy friends, had been in swimming at the public baths in Lake Calhoun. On the way home they tried to get a ride. When a short distance east of the easterly end of the iron fence, the driver of a truck going east on the northerly driveway told them they might ride with him. They ran after him, but he did not stop and they could not get on. Plaintiff then spied a kind-hearted lady stopping on the southerly driveway to take on some boys, and, thinking he saw a chance for a ride there, ran across the tracks, and in doing so came into contact with a west-bound street car which was passing down the grade towards the bathhouse.
[1] 1. The principal charge of negligence is that the street car approached at an excessive rate of speed, and that the motorman failed to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians. The evidence discloses that on a hot summer day the Calhoun baths are much frequented. This was a hot day and there were many people at the baths. One of plaintiff's small boy companions said that ‘around the bathhouse there and along the boulevard’ there was a ‘large multitude’ of people, and a ‘large sum of automobiles' a ‘very large amount.’ People walk on both sides of the boulevard and pass back and forth. There is evidence that the street car was going 25 miles an hour or more. The motorman did not see plaintiff or his companions until almost the moment plaintiff was struck. The jury might well find this speed was excessive, in view of the locality and the crowds of people, and they might find that under the circumstances a reasonably alert motorman would have seen plaintiff in time to take some measures to avoid the accident. The truck which the boys followed had a canopy top. This fact had some tendency to obstruct the motorman's view and to relieve him from the charge of negligence in failing to see plaintiff, but it did not, as a matter of law, relieve him entirely.
[2] 2. The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence is a difficult one. Perhaps his conduct would have been negligent had he been a grown person, though it is not, as a matter of law, without regard to circumstances, negligence, for an adult to cross a street railway track without first looking and listening for approaching cars (Shea v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 50 Minn. 395, 52 N. W. 902;Riley v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 424, 83 N. W. 376...
To continue reading
Request your trial