Johnson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 884,43 Minn. 53
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHNSON v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

43 Minn. 53

44 N.W. 884

JOHNSONvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 27, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. It is the duty of a railway company to place its structures and signal posts at a reasonably safe distance from its tracks so as not to be dangerous to brakemen and other operatives upon the trains, or to warn them of such dangers, if they exist. The employes are not presumed to assume the risk of such perils, in the absence of notice.

2. Plaintiff's intestate, who had been employed for about two weeks in its yard, where were numerous tracks and constantly moving trains, was killed by coming in contact with a signal post while ascending the outside ladder of a box-car. The post was four feet from the rail. There was evidence tending to show that the post was too near the cars to be practically safe for operatives, unless aware of the danger. Held that, upon the evidence, the question of defendant's negligence in locating and maintaining the post was for the jury, (GILFILLAN, C. J., dissenting;) and also that the court was not warranted in holding, as a matter of law, that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence in not observing that the post was so near the cars as to be dangerous, and in not appreciating and avoiding the danger. But the evidence is held not so clearly to preponderate in favor of the verdict as to warrant a reversal of the order of the trial court granting a new trial.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; KELLY, Judge.

Richard K. Boney, for appellant.

Flandrau, Squires & Cutcheon, (M. D. Grover, of counsel,) for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The general propositions of law applicable to this case are that a railroad company is bound to place signal posts or other structures used in connection with its road, or the operation thereof, at a reasonably safe distance from the track, so as not to be dangerous to brakemen or other employes who work on its trains, but if, for any reason, it is found necessary to erect or place such structures so close as to be hazardous to its employes, it is in such case its duty to warn them of the danger, so that they may understand the nature of the risks to which they are to be subjected, and may govern themselves accordingly; and, in the absence of such notice, they have a right to assume that the company has performed its duty in this respect. They are presumed to have knowledge of the ordinary perils of the employment, but not of special or extra hazards, such as may arise from the unsafe proximity of signal posts, bridges, etc., of the presence of which they have not been informed, or of the dangers incident to which they have not learned. If, in case of an accident to an employe, the master's failure to perform his duty in these respects is clearly established,-that is to say, if such structures are obviously so near the track as to be dangerous, or if, on the other hand, they are shown to be so far removed as to make it apparent that employes or operatives can discharge their duties in the exercise of ordinary prudence, with reasonable safety, or if it is clear that the plaintiff has negligently exposed himself to danger, or knew, or in the exercise of ordinary prudence ought to have known, and avoided it,-in all such cases the question of negligence, or the exercise of reasonable care on the part of either or both parties, will be for the court; otherwise it will be for the jury. These propositions are so generally accepted that th...