Johnson v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1905
• Citation: 104 N.W. 961,96 Minn. 316
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

96 Minn. 316

104 N.W. 961

JOHNSON

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 24, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Scott County; P. W. Morrison, Judge.

Action by Carl A. Johnson against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Verdict for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The farm crossing required by Gen. St. 1894, § 2696, was intended for the benefit of the owner of the farm through which the railroad extends, and the company is under no legal obligation to maintain the crossing as it extends over the track in good condition for general public use.

When the planks of the crossing are removed by the company with the knowledge, or express or implied consent, of the owner of the land, the company is not liable for injuries to a third person using the crossing for his own benefit. F. J. Leonard, for appellant.

F. W. Root, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

The facts in this case are as follows: The line of defendant's railroad extends through the farm of one Ole Hagen, and at the time of its construction defendant provided a farm crossing for the use and benefit of the owner of the land, placing gates in the right of way fences, and planking the track to facilitate the passage of teams over and across the same. Prior to the time complained of in this action, defendant was in the habit of removing the planks in the fall of the year, and replacing them again in the spring, and had so removed them a week or ten days prior to the accident complained of. During the winter of 1903-04 plaintiff was residing upon this farm under some arrangement with Hagen; but he had not operated the farm, nor does the evidence show that he leased it for the purpose of operating it during 1904. In fact, he testified that he had nothing to do with the farm, and had the use of the buildings only. He had some stock of his own, and as compensation for the use of the buildings was caring for certain stock belonging to Hagen. Plaintiff was injured December 21, 1903, by being thrown from a load of hay while crossing the track at this farm crossing. The planks, as already stated, had previously been removed, and plaintiff's bobsled, upon which he was hauling some hay, dropped between the rails and caught in some manner, which suddenly stopped the team, throwing plaintiff to the ground. He brought this action to recover damages against the railway company on the ground that it was guilty of negligence in removing the...