Lynch v. Great Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,688 - (25) |
| Citation | 128 N.W. 457,112 Minn. 382 |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. LYNCH v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $30,971 damages, alleged to have been sustained while in defendant's employ as a switchman. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Taylor, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,000. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order, plaintiff appealed. Reversed, with directions to order judgment in favor of plaintiff on the verdict.
Rules regarding inspection of cars -- question of fact.
The question whether certain rules of the defendant, in respect to the inspection of cars, specifically made applicable to employees in the freight train service, applied to and controlled switchmen in the discharge of their duties, held one of fact for the jury.
Evidence of contributory negligence.
Evidence held not so far conclusive of plaintiff's contributory negligence as to authorize a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury.
Stewart & Brower, for appellant.
J. D Sullivan, for respondent.
Plaintiff a switchman in the employ of defendant, was injured while engaged in the discharge of his duties, and brought this action to recover damages therefor. He had a verdict in the court below, which was subsequently set aside, and judgment ordered for defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly, and plaintiff appealed.
Negligence on the part of defendant was conceded on the trial, and the sole questions submitted to the jury were: (1) The alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff; and (2) the amount of damages. The jury found against the defense of contributory negligence, and gave plaintiff a verdict for $4,000. The trial court, on the motion for judgment, held that the evidence was conclusive of plaintiff's contributory negligence, and ordered judgment for defendant; and the question presented to this court is whether this conclusion of the trial court was right.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a switchman in its yards at St. Cloud. His duties were discharged under the direction of a yardmaster, and consisted in switching cars about the yards and making up the trains. On the morning of the accident complained of, a train of cars loaded with logs was brought into the yards at St. Cloud from Cass Lake, destined to Sauk Rapids. The cars so loaded were brought into the yards at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and there remained until about eight o'clock in the evening, when the switching crew, of which plaintiff was a member, were ordered to transfer them to Sauk Rapids. The switching engine was used for this purpose. The cars were supplied with air brakes, and before coupling the engine thereto plaintiff examined and found the air hose connection between each car in proper condition. There were six of these cars, the rear one of which was coupled to a box car, which plaintiff disconnected at the time the cars were coupled to the engine. He gave the engineer the proper signal to proceed, and climbed upon the rear end of the last car.
These "logging cars" were equipped with an adjustable brake. When adjusted for use they were in a perpendicular or upright position at the end of the car, but were so constructed and arranged that for convenience in loading and unloading the brake staff was removed from that position and laid horizontally at the end of the car and below the surface thereof, resting in a socket constructed on the outer side to sustain and keep it in position. The logs upon this particular car were improperly loaded, the ends thereof projected out over the end of the car to such an extent that the brake staff could not be placed in its proper position for use, and it remained from the starting point in the reclining position at the end of the car. It was in this condition when the switching crew proceeded to Sauk Rapids.
After plaintiff had signaled the engineer and climbed upon the car, he claims to have heard some rattling or dragging noise, indicating to him that something about the car was not in proper order, and he made an effort to learn its whereabouts. By reason of the projecting logs he was unable to move about, but finally discovered the brake dragging upon the ground between the rails. He claims to have immediately attempted to stop the movement of the cars by turning on the air brake, and as he reached for the angle cock located at the end of the car, and near where he was stationed to perform that act, the wheel on the end of the brake staff struck some obstacle on the track and bounded up, striking him in the head, inflicting very serious injuries.
It is the contention of the defendant that the evidence conclusively establishes plaintiff's contributory negligence, in this: (1) His disregard and failure to observe and comply with certain rules prescribed by the company for the performance of his duties; (2) that the fact that he did not notice the condition of the brake staff, if the evidence sustains his contention in that respect, was due solely to his failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety; and (3) that the evidence is manifestly and palpably against the conclusion of the jury that plaintiff did not notice the condition of the brake staff when he signaled the engineer to proceed, or immediately thereafter -- by reason of all of which defendant insists that plaintiff contributed to his injury and cannot recover.
The question is not whether the evidence is so manifestly against the verdict as to justify a new trial, in the discretion of the court, for a new trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial