Lawson v. Truesdale
| Citation | 62 N.W. 546,60 Minn. 410 |
| Parties | LAWSON v. TRUESDALE. |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1895 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
LAWSON
v.
TRUESDALE.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March 28, 1895.
1. In this latitude, where more or less snow falls and ice accumulates therefrom in the winter season, whereby it becomes necessary to remove it from railway tracks many times in order that a railway may be operated, and also made safer for employés, the dangers to the latter increase, and the risks assumed become more hazardous.
2. When entering into the railway service in such a latitude, an employé assumes such risks as are usually and customarily incident to the falling of snow, the forming of ice, and the removal of the same from tracks and places where employés are required to work, when the removal or disposition thereof is done in a proper and reasonable manner, in the exercise of due and ordinary care for the safety of employés.
3. Whether from the evidence it appeared that the snow and ice were removed from defendant's yard, in which plaintiff worked as a switchman when injured, in a proper and reasonable manner, in the exercise of due and ordinary care for the safety of employés, was a question of fact for the jury to determine.
4. Held, that whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence when attempting to board a car in motion, in the usual and proper manner for discharging his duties, as he claimed, was also a question for the jury.
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Seagrave Smith, Judge.
Action by C. F. Lawson against W. H. Truesdale, receiver of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company, for personal injuries. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Albert E. Clarke and Wilbur F. Booth, for appellant.
Larrabee & Gammons, for respondent.
COLLINS, J.
This is a personal injury case, in which plaintiff had a verdict. The appeal is from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, and the only exception taken during the proceedings, so far as appears from the record, was that of defendant to the refusal of the court below to instruct the jury to return a verdict in its favor. There was little controversy over the facts. Plaintiff was an experienced switchman in defendant's employ, and had worked for more than two months in what was known as the “middle yard” at Minneapolis. The “lead” track in this yard ran northerly and southerly, and on its westerly side were several side tracks, branching off and running in a northerly direction from the lead. There was a slight ascent on all of these side tracks, so that a car placed upon either had to have its wheels blocked or its brakes set, to prevent its return down grade towards the lead. The switch stands for these side tracks stood 67 feet apart on the opposite or easterly side of the lead track, were numbered, going northerly, from one upward, and surmounting the top of each switch rod was the usual iron target, distant about two feet from a passing freight car. It was plaintiff's duty to “catch” the cars as they were pushed or “kicked” by a locomotive onto these side tracks, to stop them at the proper points, to either block the wheels or set the brakes, and, if necessary, to couple them on to other cars. He was the only man in the yard who did this particular work, and was usually busily employed. All of the switching to the side tracks in the yard was necessarily from a southerly direction, and from the evidence it appeared that it was customary and proper for all men engaged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial