Lancette v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 02 August 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,891 |
| Citation | 168 N.W. 634,140 Minn. 488 |
| Parties | FRED LANCETTE v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $17,500 for injuries received while in defendant's employ. The answer among other matters alleged that the work in which plaintiff was employed, that of switchman, involved certain dangers and hazards which were well known to him and which he assumed as part of his employment; that such injuries as he received resulted from the dangers and hazards of that employment. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Michael, J., who, at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $7,540. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied and its motion for a new trial on the ground of excessive damages was granted unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $4,500. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Master and servant -- negligence of fellow servant -- verdict sustained by evidence.
Plaintiff claims to have been thrown from the top of a freight car by a negligent coupling operation. The evidence sustains the verdict of the jury that the coupling was negligently made and that plaintiff did not assume the risk.
M. L. Countryman and A. L. Janes, for appellant.
Wickersham & Metcalf, for respondent.
Plaintiff was a switchman in defendant's railroad yards. He was riding on top and at the foremost end of the forward car of a string of 19 freight cars that had been "kicked" on to a switch. The engine, attached to another string of 15 cars was backing up to make a coupling. Plaintiff knew of the purpose to make this coupling, and the operation was of the usual kind in railroad switching. The negligence claimed is that the engine was moved back with unusual speed and made the coupling with unusual violence and that thereby plaintiff was thrown from the top of the car and was injured. The jury found for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
The evidence is not of a satisfactory kind. Plaintiff claimed that the accident had obliterated all recollection of the events of that day. The evidence in his behalf is that of three workmen in an adjoining yard of the St. Paul Foundry Company. These men did not see plaintiff until he was in the act of falling, but they heard the noise of the coupling operation. They testified that the coupling was made with "an extraordinary noise." Some of the testimony of these men was plainly exaggerated. For example, one of them testified that plaintiff was sent flying through the air a distance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial