Mathews v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 14 November 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,434 - (47) |
| Citation | 84 N.W. 101,81 Minn. 363 |
| Parties | ELEANORE A. MATHEWS v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county by plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Thomas P. Mathews, deceased to recover $5,000 damages on account of his death. During the course of the trial before O. B. Lewis, J., and a jury, the action was dismissed as to the Great Northern Railway Company. At the close of the trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants, except Archibald Guthrie and others, copartners as A. Guthrie & Co. against whom the jury rendered a verdict for the amount demanded. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants last-named appealed. Affirmed.
Evidence -- Declaration of Actor to Explain His Act.
When it is material to show the purpose or reason for the departure of a person, or of an act done by him, his declarations of his purpose or reason for so doing, made at or about the time he acts, if made in a natural way, and without any circumstances of suspicion, are admissible as original evidence.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Verdict Sustained.
Held, in this, a personal injury case, that the trial court did not err in its rulings as to the admission of evidence, nor in its instructions to the jury, and that the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
H. Richardson and C. Wellington, for appellants.
A. T. Ankeny and Albert Johnson, for respondent.
The plaintiff's intestate, Thomas P. Mathews, was killed by the derailment of a construction train upon which he was riding, which was operated and controlled by the defendants Guthrie & Co. This action was brought against them and other parties by the widow of Mr. Mathews, as administratrix of his estate, to recover damages resulting from his death, which was caused, as the complaint alleges, by the negligence of the several defendants. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for all of the defendants except Guthrie & Co., hereafter designated as the defendants, and submitted the cause to the jury as to them. Verdict for the plaintiff for $5,000, and the defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial.
The assignments of error logically fall into three general groups: First. Did the trial court err in its rulings as to the admissibility of evidence? Second. Did it err in its instructions to the jury? Third. Is the verdict sustained by the evidence?
1. The defendants were engaged as contractors in building for the Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota a railway line about one hundred miles long between Deer River and Fosston, in this state. They sublet the grading to various parties, the track-laying to Brennan & Son, and the bridge and culvert work to the firm of Mathews & Keith, of which the plaintiff's intestate was a member. The defendants operated a construction train to aid in the execution of the work, but the track-laying and bridge firms hired their own men, and paid them for their services. The contract between the defendants and Mathews & Keith provided that the defendants should supply all timber and iron on the cars for the bridges at the most convenient points, free of charge, but the bridge contractors were to take the timber and iron from the cars. There was no provision in the contract for the transportation of the bridge contractors or any of their employees.
On August 7, 1898, the construction of the railway had been so far completed westward and across the Mississippi river at Bemidji that the construction train could cross the bridge at that point, although the bridge was not then entirely completed. On the day named the construction train started out from its siding, six miles east of the bridge, and when it reached the bridge it left a car of bridge material thereon, and proceeded westward across the bridge. The train on its return took the empty car from which the bridge material had been removed. The plaintiff's intestate, Mr. Mathews, boarded the train on this return trip at the bridge, and the train proceeded on its way towards the siding for dinner and more material. It was necessary to back the train, and it ran upon an obstruction on the track. The car on which Mr. Mathews was riding was derailed, and he was thrown upon the track and run over by a car, and so injured thereby that he died on the next day.
Upon the trial it was an important issue whether or not Mr Mathews was rightfully upon the train, with the consent of the defendants, at the time he was injured. As bearing upon this issue, the plaintiff was permitted, over the objection and exception of the defendants, to give in evidence the testimony of a witness (Mr. Langdon), tending to show that Mr. Mathews boarded the train for the purpose of going back for the balance of the material that was necessary for the completion of the bridge, which was to be loaded at the siding. It is true, as claimed by the defendants, that the testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial