Kreuzer v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Citation | 86 N.W. 413,83 Minn. 385 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,528 - (70) |
| Parties | GEORGE KREUZER v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Otter Tail county to recover $15,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Searle, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $8,000. On defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the court made an order denying judgment but granting a new trial. From this order defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Clearing Wreck -- Negligence of Fellow Servant.
The plaintiff, while at work clearing a wrecked train from the defendant's railway tracks, was injured by the alleged negligence of his fellow servants, which caused the roof of a disabled car to fall upon him. Held that, upon the evidence in this case, it was a question for the jury whether or not the work was being executed under such conditions and circumstances as to expose the plaintiff to the peculiar hazards of railroad service, within the meaning of G.S. 1894 § 2701, making railway companies liable to an injured employee for the negligence of his fellow servant.
W. E Dodge and J. W. Mason, for appellant.
C. C. Houpt and Parsons & Brown, for respondent.
The complaint in this (a personal injury) action alleges, in substance, these facts: The plaintiff on October 7, 1899, was, and had been for a number of years prior thereto, in the service of the defendant as a section hand. On the night of the day named he was engaged, as one of a crew of men under the direction of the defendant's division road master, in the work of clearing away a wreck on the railway track. Extraordinary haste was used in the execution of the work, and the plaintiff and others were directed by the road master to enter a wrecked freight car then on the track, and remove its load of cordwood. They complied with the order, and while so engaged in the inside of the car the road master ordered a large number of men upon the broken and loose roof of the car, which caused the roof to sag and fall upon the plaintiff, whereby he was injured. The acts of the road master in ordering the men upon the roof of the car, and the acts of the men in so crowding upon the roof of the car, were negligent, and were caused by the extreme haste and urgency with which the work of clearing away the wreck was executed. The plaintiff's injuries were caused by such negligence, whereby he sustained damages in the sum of $15,000. The answer, so far as here material, alleges that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by his own negligence, and denies all allegations of negligence in the premises on the part of the defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict of $8,000 for the plaintiff, and the defendant made a blended motion for judgment in its favor or for a new trial. The trial court made its order denying the motion for judgment, but granted a new trial. The defendant appealed from the whole of the order, and here claims that, upon the undisputed evidence, it was, as a matter of law, entitled to a directed verdict in its favor; hence it is here entitled to an order for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Laws 1895, c. 320.
There was little or no conflict of evidence as to many of the material facts. The undisputed evidence establishes these facts: A collision occurred between two of the defendant's freight trains near Ashby, this state October 7, 1899, resulting in a disastrous wreck, and the obstruction of the railway tracks by the disabled cars so that no trains could pass until they were removed, and it was necessary to do so with haste. The section crew, of whom the plaintiff was one, were ordered out to clear away the wreck, which they reached about eleven o'clock at night, and commenced work. Among the cars to be removed was a box car some thirty-eight feet long, and loaded with...
To continue reading
Request your trial