Johnson v. Duluth, W. & P. Ry. Co., No. 22693.

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtQUINN
Citation152 Minn. 151,188 N.W. 221
Decision Date12 May 1922
Docket NumberNo. 22693.
PartiesJOHNSON v. DULUTH, W. & P. RY. CO. et al.

152 Minn. 151
188 N.W. 221

JOHNSON
v.
DULUTH, W. & P. RY.
CO. et al.

No. 22693.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 12, 1922.


Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.

Action by Alex Johnson against the Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.


Syllabus by the Court

In a personal injury action, to constitute wanton conduct, the person committing the act must be conscious, from his knowledge of existing conditions, that his mode of action would naturally or probably result in injury. Without knowledge of the presence of some one liable to be injured, he could not have expected that his act would result in injury.

Proofs as shown by the record considered, and held, that it does not appear therefrom that the defendant charged with wanton conduct knew of the presence of the boy at the time, and that the order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was justified.


[188 N.W. 221]

John Jenswold and John D. Jenswold, both of Duluth, for appellant.

Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell, of Duluth, for respondents.


QUINN, J.

Action to recover for personal injury to plaintiff's minor son, occasioned by the alleged wanton conduct of the defendant Benedict J. Venne, while acting as a fireman on one of the defendant company's locomotives. There was a verdict of $6,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Upon their motion the trial court ordered judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. From a judgment entered in accordance therewith the plaintiff appeals.

At the time and place of the injury there were two parallel railway tracks extending east and west, crossed at right angles by a public street. The locomotive in connection with which the injury occurred was upon the north track headed to the east. It was being used in switching and spotting cars. The plaintiff's son, Clarence, who was 15 years of age, was playing top with several younger boys at the northwest corner of the intersection. The locomotive backed up to the west side of the crossing and stopped. Clarence got onto the north end of the footboard at the front end of the locomotive, on the fireman's side, and Leonard Nelson got onto the opposite end. Clarence stood facing the locomotive with his elbows resting on the handrail, in the act of whittling a groove in his top. The locomotive, with the boys on the footboard, backed to the west some considerable distance and spotted some cars on a side track, then pulled...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Gallegher v. Davis
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • 13 d1 Janeiro d1 1936
    ...See 20 R.C.L. 20; 45 C.J. 671-676; Vessel v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co, 182 Ala. 589, 62 So. 180; Johnson v. Duluth, W. & P. R. Co, 152 Minn. 151, 188 N.W. 221;. Lee v. Lott, 50 Ga.App. 39, 177 S.E. 92;. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; Stout v. Gallemore, 138 Kan. 385, 26 P.......
  • Gallegher v. Davis
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • 13 d1 Janeiro d1 1936
    ...L. 20; 45 C. J. 671-676; Vessel v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 182 Ala. 589, 62 So. 180; Johnson v. Duluth, W. & P. R. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N.W. 221; Lee v. Lott, 50 Ga.App. 39, 177 S.E. 92; Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; Stout v. Gallemore, 138 Kan. 385, 26 P.2d 573; Ce......
  • Raths v. Sherwood, No. 30382.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 4 d5 Outubro d5 1935
    ...subject we cite: Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N. W. 137;Johnson v. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N. W. 221; Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Ry. Co., 162 Minn. 112, 202 N. W. 340, 41 A. L. R. 1377. Furthermore, the clause i......
  • Raths v. Sherwood, No. 30382.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 4 d5 Outubro d5 1935
    ...subject we cite: Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N. W. 137; Johnson v. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N. W. 221; Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Ry. Co., 195 Minn. 231 162 Minn. 112, 202 N. W. 340, 41 A. L. R. 1377. Furthermor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Gallegher v. Davis
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • 13 d1 Janeiro d1 1936
    ...See 20 R.C.L. 20; 45 C.J. 671-676; Vessel v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co, 182 Ala. 589, 62 So. 180; Johnson v. Duluth, W. & P. R. Co, 152 Minn. 151, 188 N.W. 221;. Lee v. Lott, 50 Ga.App. 39, 177 S.E. 92;. Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; Stout v. Gallemore, 138 Kan. 385, 2......
  • Gallegher v. Davis
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Delaware
    • 13 d1 Janeiro d1 1936
    ...20; 45 C. J. 671-676; Vessel v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 182 Ala. 589, 62 So. 180; Johnson v. Duluth, W. & P. R. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N.W. 221; Lee v. Lott, 50 Ga.App. 39, 177 S.E. 92; Menzie v. Kalmonowitz, 107 Conn. 197, 139 A. 698; Stout v. Gallemore, 138 Kan. 385, 26 P.2d 573; C......
  • Raths v. Sherwood, No. 30382.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 4 d5 Outubro d5 1935
    ...we cite: Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N. W. 137;Johnson v. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N. W. 221; Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Ry. Co., 162 Minn. 112, 202 N. W. 340, 41 A. L. R. 1377. Furthermore, the clau......
  • Raths v. Sherwood, No. 30382.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 4 d5 Outubro d5 1935
    ...we cite: Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N. W. 137; Johnson v. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry. Co., 152 Minn. 151, 188 N. W. 221; Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Ry. Co., 195 Minn. 231 162 Minn. 112, 202 N. W. 340, 41 A. L. R. 1377. Furthe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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