Krumdick v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 10 July 1903
• Docket Number: 13,544 - (184)
• Citation: 95 N.W. 1122,90 Minn. 260
• Parties: G.H. KRUMDICK v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 1122

90 Minn. 260

G.H. KRUMDICK v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 13,544 - (184)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 10, 1903

Action in the district court for Winona county by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Jacob C. Schneller, deceased to recover $2,000 for the death of decedent. The case was tried before Snow, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $450. From a judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

General Verdict.

A general verdict upon issues and evidence properly submitted is presumed to have decided every fact or deduction therefrom essential to support it, while a special finding of the jury must be limited and controlled by its specific terms.

Special Finding.

Where the special finding, upon any reasonable inference or fair and sensible view of its language, can be reconciled with the general verdict, this course should be adopted, and the general verdict upheld.

Negligence -- Contributory Negligence.

In an action against a railway company for negligence in furnishing a brakeman with a car having a defective coupling appliance a general verdict for plaintiff held not to be controlled by a special finding that a defective drawbar was known to have been lower than one on the next car, since it does not follow that such difference, as a matter of law, imposes upon the employee a knowledge of the risks and dangers incurred by its use.

Brown, Abbott & Somsen, for appellant.

Webber & Lees, for respondent.

OPINION

LOVELY, J.

Action by an administrator for the death of a freight brakeman, employed on defendant's road, occurring through the alleged negligence of the company in providing an unsuitable car for intestate's use, as well as the failure of an engineer and fireman properly to perform their duties. At the close of the evidence defendant requested a directed verdict, which was refused; plaintiff recovered; defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. This appeal is from the judgment.

On this review we may accept the following facts as having been sufficiently supported by the evidence to authorize the verdict: Intestate was a rear brakeman on a freight train composed of an engine, nine cars, and a caboose. This train was made up at Waseca about two o'clock on the morning of May 14, 1901, and started for Evans, a station west of Mankato, on defendant's road. The train had proceeded about thirty miles when, descending a steep grade, it became necessary to slacken its speed to enable the engineer to observe signals at a railway crossing. At this time intestate was standing upon the top of one of the cars near the caboose; there was a break in the coupling apparatus between the third and fourth rear cars dividing the train in two sections; the latter fell behind; the engineer, ignorant or unmindful of the break, slackened the speed of the engine, when the rear section ran into the forward one, causing a violent collision, which precipitated intestate upon the track, where he was run over and instantly killed.

While the train was being made up at Waseca, and before it left on the trip to Evans, it was examined and passed for use by two of the company's inspectors. The conclusion, however, is authorized that this inspection was inadequate, and did not disclose the defects in the coupling appliances, which resulted in intestate's death, since it appears from the evidence that the west drawbar of the third rear car had become so imperfect that it had dropped out of position to the extent of three and a half inches, which rendered it unsafe for use. Under a rule of the company, of which intestate had knowledge, he was required to be on hand thirty minutes before starting on the trip, to examine the train to ascertain that it was in proper order, and it must be presumed that he performed this duty, unless a special finding of the jury hereafter referred to establishes his omission in that respect.

In addition to the general verdict, the jury found specially that the train became uncoupled before the collision; that, at the time it parted, the alleged defective drawbar was three and a half inches lower than the connecting one on the adjacent car, which defect was the cause of its uncoupling; and made affirmative answer to a further question which defendant regards as decisive in its favor. This question was numbered 4, and is as follows:

"If you find...