Lofdahl v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 October 1894
• Citation: 88 Wis. 421,60 N.W. 795
• Parties: LOFDAHL v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

88 Wis. 421

60 N.W. 795

LOFDAHL

v.MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 23, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Polk county; R. D. Marshall, Judge.

Action by William Lofdahl against Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

This action is to recover for personal injuries. The defendant's railroad runs due east and west through the village of Amery. A side track extends parallel with the main track, and a few feet distant therefrom nearly the entire distance through the village. A street named “Keller Avenue” extends up to the right of way from the north at right angles with the right of way and track. From the end of this street a licensed way exists across both tracks and right of way to the south. The depot and passenger platform are just west of this licensed way. The accident happened in the daylight on the morning of May 7, 1888, and the plaintiff was nearly 16 years of age. A gravel train had just come in from the east, and stopped on the side track, near the depot. The plaintiff had been waiting for this train, and got onto it, intending to ride to Dresser Junction, a station west of Amery. While he was on the gravel train a freight train came in from the west on the main track, and stopped, the engine being near the depot. The plaintiff saw it. He had been much around railroad trains and depots. Just after it came in the conductor or brakeman put him off the gravel train. He got off on the north side, next the main track, and stepped over with one foot on the main track, about 15 or 20 feet in front of the freight engine, and, as he claims, on the aforesaid licensed way, having an angry altercation with the man who put him off the train. He stood with his back to the freight engine. While he was so standing the fireman of the freight engine, during the temporary absence of the engineer, moved the engine forward a short distance, and ran over plaintiff's foot making amputation necessary. The foregoing facts are either undisputed, or taken from the plaintiff's own evidence. There was evidence that no signals were given. On the part of the defendant there was evidence that plaintiff was not on the licensed way, but at a point considerably east thereof, on the right of way. The jury found a special verdict in substance as follows: (1) That no signal was given before the moving of the freight engine; (2)...