M'Laren v. Williston
| Decision Date | 03 February 1892 |
| Citation | 48 Minn. 299 |
| Parties | DANIEL McLAREN <I>vs.</I> HORACE WILLISTON <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants Horace Williston, James Charnley, A. S. McKinley, and William McKinley from an order of the district court of St. Louis county, Stearns, J., made May 9, 1891, refusing a new trial.
The defendants were partners in the business of getting out pine logs and sawing them into lumber at their mill at Mesaba, in St. Louis county, and operated a short line of railroad to bring the logs to the mill from the woods. Plaintiff, Daniel McLaren, was employed by them as brakeman on this road, and was injured.
The issues were tried February 5, 1891, before a jury. Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $5,500. Defendants moved for a new trial, but it was denied. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Kitchel, Cohen & Shaw, for appellants.
Edson & Hanks, for respondent.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
At and prior to the time of the accident which occasioned the injuries to the plaintiff complained of in this action, the defendants, as partners, were engaged in manufacturing lumber at their sawmill at Mesaba, in St. Louis county, and, in connection therewith, owned and operated for hauling logs to their mill a short line of railroad, running from the mill to their logging camp, a mile and one half in length. They used a locomotive engine to haul the logging cars over this line, whose coupling attachment was of the usual height and pattern, and it was also used in switching freight cars of the ordinary height used on the railway line on which their mill is situated. But the logging cars were made lower than the ordinary freight cars, and the drawheads for coupling were at least 16 inches lower than that of the engine; so that the coupler used was necessarily a long, crooked link, bent to correspond with the difference in the height of the engine and the cars. The plaintiff had been employed about the mill nearly a year before the accident, but had no experience as a brakeman upon cars, though he had previously worked on the Omaha road as a fireman for a few months. At or about the 1st of May, 1890, he commenced to work at increased wages as a brakeman on the logging train. By the direction of the superintendent, one of the defendants' employes, a former brakeman explained to him the nature of the business, and showed him how to set the brakes and do the switching about the mill, but did not explain to him the danger in coupling the engine to the logging cars. He had observed the difference between the couplings of these cars and those in ordinary use about the mill, and the difference in the links used and in the height of the cars; and during five or six days before he was injured he was employed in the regular duties of brakemen about the train, coupling and uncoupling the engine with the link in question several times each day. This link was about three feet long, and when in position, with each end turned or bent so as to pass into the respective drawheads or bumpers of the engine and car attached, left them about that distance apart. At the time of the accident the logging train (seven cars and the engine) was stationed in the woods, and was being loaded with logs. It was on a descending grade, and the engine stood "reversed," holding the train steady. While in this position the plaintiff set the brakes on the hind cars, and blocked the trucks of the forward car, as he had been instructed; and according to the testimony in his behalf, on which the recovery must have been based, the engineer directed him to uncouple, and said they would go down and "wood up" the engine. He then went in between the car and engine, and, standing on the footboard, pulled out the coupling...
To continue reading
Request your trial