Jenkins v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.

Citation124 Minn. 368,145 N.W. 40
PartiesJENKINS v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO.
Decision Date23 January 1914
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Albert Johnson, Judge.

Action by Dana H. Jenkins against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and, from denial of new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Evidence, in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the driver of a wagon in a railway crossing accident, considered, and held sufficient to take the case to the jury as to defendant's negligence with reference to warning signals, speed of the train, and necessity for lights thereon.

Taking into account the time of the accident, obstructions to view, dark color of the unlighted train, with like background, and testimony with regard to failure to give warning signals of the train's approach, together with other circumstances disclosed, plaintiff could not be held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, though he did not stop his team before attempting to cross.

The burden of proof upon the issue of contributory negligence was controlled by the rule in this state, notwithstanding the accident occurred in another state.

Verdict as reduced by trial court sustained as against claim of excessiveness. W. H. Bremner and F. M. Miner, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson and A. F. Storey, both of St. Paul, for respondent.

PHILIP E. BROWN, J.

Plaintiff had a verdict for $30,316.67, subsequently reduced to $25,000 in an action to recover damages resulting from a highway crossing collision alleged to have occurred through defendant's negligence in operating, at excessive speed and without giving warning signals of approach, a passenger train with no lights either on engine or in coaches. The case comes here on defendant's appeal from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.

The accident occurred at Perry, Iowa, a city with upwards of 5,000 inhabitants, on October 5, 1912. Defendant's line passed through there in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction, crossing the streets at an angle of about 30 degrees. Its passenger station was located east of the main line, the south end projecting about 10 feet beyond the north line of Otley avenue, which ran east and west, and was crossed by two tracks east of the main line, and parallel thereto, at distances of about 50 and 175 feet, and known as the ‘House track’ and the ‘Electric Light track,’ respectively. The station was about 100 feet in length, extending northerly; its west side being about 20 feet from the main track. There was a water tank near the latter, on its east side, about 300 feet northwest of the north line of Otley avenue, and opposite this, 25 or 30 feet west of the main track, was a grain elevator building. In the evening of the day stated, plaintiff drove a team attached to a wagon west about 300 feet along Otley avenue, crossed the House and Electric Light tracks, and passed south of the station to a point near the main line, when a passenger train some 255 feet of more in length, without light on engine or in cars, approached from the north, and the team jumped to the left and passed over the main track, but the wagon was struck by the engine and plaintiff injured.

[1] 1. Defendant claims the proofs failed to establish negligence on its part. Taking into account the location of the station and other obstructions to view situated east of the main line, it must be said that the crossing was a dangerous one, especially in case of neglect of duty with respect to warnings of trains approaching from the north. A whistle was blown at a point known as the ‘Wye,’ about one-half mile north of the station; but several attentive and apparently disinterested witnesses testified that none other was sounded, nor bell rung. As to speed, like witnesses estimated that the train was running from 15 to 20 miles an hour, while witnesses for defendant stated otherwise. The defendant's train crew, when testifying, gave no evidence as to speed. In the matter of absence of lights on the train, defendant insists the accident occurred very close to 6:15 o'clock p. m., and that it was not then dark enough to require lighting of the headlight or cars. But it appeared, among other things to be mentioned later, that another of defendant's engines in the yard had its headlight burning at the time. Upon this state of the record, all questions concerning signals, speed, and necessity for lights were clearly for the jury.

[2] 2. Defendant's principal contention relates to contributory negligence. While we have many cases dealing with this question, it is useless to attempt to fit the facts of this case to any of them. Facts rarely, if ever, are identical, and we have no case involving the precise circumstances disclosed. However, certain principles have become settled in analogous cases, and, if their application leads to the conclusion of plaintiff's negligence as a matter of law, he cannot recover. Thus, a railway grade crossing is a place of danger, and the track itself a warning. It must be approached circumspectively by persons purposing to cross, and they are charged with notice of probability of approaching trains at all times. If the crossing may properly be termed ‘dangero...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT