Lewis v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 06 February 1914
• Docket Number: 18,385 - (246)
• Citation: 145 N.W. 393,124 Minn. 487
• Parties: JAMES LEWIS v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 393

124 Minn. 487

JAMES LEWIS v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY

Nos. 18,385 - (246)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 6, 1914

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $25,000 for injury received while in the employ of defendant. The answer alleged that whatever injuries plaintiff received were caused by his own negligent failure to exercise proper care for his own safety, and his negligence directly contributed to the accident. It further alleged that plaintiff knew and appreciated whatever dangers or hazards were involved in the situation and assumed the risks of whatever dangers were involved in his employment. The case was tried before Catlin J., who at the close of plaintiff's testimony denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and at the close of all the testimony defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, and a jury which returned a verdict of $8,750 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.

SYLLABUS

Verdict not sustained by evidence.

Evidence in an action by a railroad brakeman to recover damages for injuries received from being caught between the engine-tender and the end of certain poles projecting from a car which he had just uncoupled, or was uncoupling, held insufficient to sustain a verdict in his favor, in that thereunder it was merely conjectural whether the accident was due to some movement of the engine, which would have involved liability on defendant's part, or from the settling of the poles or cars, which would not.

Briggs Thygeson & Everall, for appellant.

Barton & Kay, for respondent.

OPINION

PHILIP E. BROWN, J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or new trial, after verdict for plaintiff returned in an action to recover damages for personal injuries.

There is little dispute on the facts, and none as to the following: On November 26, 1912, and previously, plaintiff was a freight brakeman in defendant's employment, his run being between Austin and Hayfield, in this state. A flat car loaded with poles had remained on defendant's side track in Austin for several days prior to the date stated. Its load had shifted forward, so that some of the poles projected over one end. Plaintiff was familiar with this car and the condition of its load. In the evening of the day mentioned, pursuant to his duties, he coupled the car into a train, next to the engine. In order to do this, and to connect the airhose, he had to get under the ends of the poles. Later the train, including this car in the position stated, was moved out, plaintiff accompanying it, and arrived at Mayville, the next station, about 10 o'clock p.m., the night being very dark. When the train arrived there, two cars were standing on the side track. Pursuant to orders, plaintiff cut out the pole-car from the train by uncoupling and disconnecting the air at the rear end. The engine and car then moved forward, plaintiff accompanying them, and backed slowly in on the siding, until the car came in contact with the forward car already there. Plaintiff gave the engineer a stop signal, who thereupon applied the air and brought the engine and car to a stop, and plaintiff, for the purpose of leaving the car on the siding, stepped in between it and the tender, turned the angle-cocks, and disconnected the air; whereupon his head was caught between the tender and projecting poles, thus occasioning the injuries complained of.

1. The complaint charged negligence in the condition of the poles, and also that defendant moved the engine and car, shoving them closer together, while plaintiff was in the position stated, thus causing the accident; but the court submitted the latter ground only. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict being challenged, a somewhat fuller statement thereof relating to the occurrence is necessitated.

The side-track was level at the place of the accident. The engine and car were equipped with air-brakes, and to accomplish the switching movement the engineer started the engine in backward motion, then shut off the steam and "drifted in," using the air for control; the speed, when backing being three or four miles an hour, and there being but slight jar when the cars came together. The stop was made by applying the air brakes on engine and car, the engine remaining set for further backward movement, wherefore if any motion thereafter occurred it would have been towards the car. The effect of the setting of the brakes, however, was to hold the engine and car steady and leave them standing where they stopped, and the engineer contemplated...