Jones v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 08 January 1904
• Docket Number: 13,684 - (169)
• Citation: 97 N.W. 893,91 Minn. 229
• Parties: GEORGE JONES and Another v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 N.W. 893

91 Minn. 229

GEORGE JONES and Another v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY and Another

Nos. 13,684 - (169)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 8, 1904

Action in the district court for Waseca county against Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company and Great Northern Railway Company to recover $2,042 for the loss of cattle which perished in a blizzard while in transit over the line of the Great Northern Company. The case was tried before Buckham, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,200. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant Great Northern Railway Company appealed. Reversed, and judgment ordered for defendant.

SYLLABUS

Common Carrier -- Negligence.

While an act of God will excuse a common carrier for loss of goods in his possession, yet, where the negligence of the carrier concurs in or contributes to the loss, he is liable therefor.

Act of God.

When however, it is shown that the loss was due to an overpowering cause, the burden is on the opposite party to establish such negligence of the carrier.

Evidence.

The plaintiffs in this case delivered to the defendant certain cattle to be transported in one of its freight trains to their destination, but before it was reached the train was caught in a blizzard, became snow-bound, and the cattle froze to death. Held, that the proximate cause of the loss was an act of God, and that the evidence did not support the verdict, to the effect that the defendant was guilty of negligence.

M. L. Countryman, for appellant.

John Moonan, for respondents.

OPINION

START, C.J.

On March 11, 1902, the Great Northern Railway Company, hereafter designated as the defendant, received at the Minnesota transfer, in St. Paul, two carloads of cattle, consisting of one hundred twenty calves, yearlings, and two-year olds, to be transported and delivered to the plaintiffs at Hinsdale, Montana. On March 14 the train of which the two cars were a part reached a point thirty miles west of Imot, North Dakota, which is the end of a division of the defendant's railway, where it was caught in a fierce blizzard, and a part thereof, including the two cars containing the plaintiff's cattle, was stuck in a snow bank, and before it was relieved the cattle were frozen to death. This action was brought to recover their value on the ground that their loss was due to the negligence of the defendant. The defense was that the loss was caused by an act of God, without fault of the defendant. At the close of the evidence the defendant requested the trial court to direct a verdict for it on the ground that the evidence disclosed no negligence on its part. The request was denied, and the cause submitted to the jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiffs for $1,200. The defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The principal question here to be considered is whether the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The law applicable to this case is well settled. While an act of God will excuse a common carrier for loss of goods in his possession, yet, where the negligence of the carrier concurs in or contributes to the loss, he is liable therefor. When, however, it is shown that the loss was due to an overpowering cause, the burden is on the opposite party to establish such negligence of the carrier. Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176; Wolf v. American, 43 Mo. 421, 97 Am. Dec. 406, and notes.

It being undisputed in this case that the loss was due proximately to the storm -- an act of God -- the burden was on the plaintiffs to show that the defendant did or omitted to do, in the transportation of their stock, that which a reasonable and prudent person would have done or refrained from doing, and that such negligence was an active and cooperative cause of the loss. We have, then, this question: Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury, to the effect that the defendant was guilty of such negligence? We answer it in the negative.

There is but little conflict in the evidence, which establishes the following facts: The train containing the two cars of stock left Minot on the morning of March 14 at 8.35, and consisted of forty-three loaded cars. The two cars, and three others, containing immigrants' movables, including live stock, constituted the rear of the train. A short distance west of Minot, on an up grade, the train encountered a head wind, and was forty-five minutes behind time when it reached Des Lacs, a siding with a section house, thirteen miles west from Minot. At this point seven cars were taken out of the train and left on a side track, and the train about noon started on west. At this time, according to the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, it was snowing and the wind was blowing, but it was not very cold, and it was not until the train was some distance west of Des Lacs that it got into the blizzard. The testimony, however, of the conductor of the train, and that of one of his brakemen, tends to show that when the train left Des Lacs it was snowing hard, and the wind was blowing some, but it was not cold; that it was a blizzard, and it was storming so hard that the signals given by the brakeman could not be seen the full length of the train, but there were then no signs of a blockaded road.

As the testimony of the conductor and brakeman as to the condition of the weather is more favorable for the plaintiffs than their own, it must, for the purposes of this appeal, be held that the weather when the train left Des Lacs was as stated by them. The capacity of the engine under ordinary...