Jacobson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 July 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 932,41 Minn. 206
• Parties: JACOBSON v ST. PAUL & D. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

41 Minn. 206

42 N.W. 932

JACOBSONvST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 8, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the verdict held not excessive.

Appeal from district court, Carlton county; STEARNS, Judge.

Action by Annie Jacobson, as administratrix of Henry Jacobson, deceased, against the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, for damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate. Intestate was employed in a lumber-yard, and was loading one of defendant's cars with lumber. He was standing on a plank, one end of which was resting on the car, and the other on a sawhorse standing between the rails of the track. A loaded car was standing a few feet in front of the car which intestate was loading, and one of defendant's employés attempted to couple the loaded car onto a train to remove it, but missed the coupling and the car was driven against the car which intestate was loading, throwing him upon the rail. The car passed over him, and he received injuries from which he died. Judgment for plaintiff for $5,000, and defendant appeals.

Jas. Smith, Jr., and W. A. Barr, for appellant.

H. H. Hawkins, (S. E. Cheeseman, of counsel,) for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

There is no reason to disturb the verdict in this case. The evidence is abundantly sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the defendant's locomotive, which went upon the side track to pick up and remove the loaded cars standing on it, was driven at a rate of speed that made it almost recklessness with respect to the car which plaintiff's intestate was loading. It was the engineer's business to know what cars he was to remove,-to know that he was not to interfere with the one at which the deceased was at work, for the reason that the loading was not completed. He must have known that car was there to be loaded. He ought to have anticipated that some one was or might be there engaged in loading it, and it was his duty to run his locomotive with reference to that condition of things. There is in the evidence hardly a suggestion of negligence on the part of the deceased. He had a right to be where he was, to load the car in the manner in which he was loading it. It was entirely safe, unless in the case of a degree of negligence on the part of defendant's servants which he had no reason to anticipate. The verdict is not excessive in such sense as to call on us to interfere with it on that ground. Order affirmed.