Matthias v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,393 - (251) |
| Citation | 146 N.W. 353,125 Minn. 224 |
| Parties | CHARLES MATTHIAS v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,900 being a depreciation of $10 per month in the rental value of plaintiff's property and $1,800 in the value of his real estate by the operation of defendant's switching yard. The answer was a general denial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Steele, J., who, at the close of plaintiff's case, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish any cause of action against defendant. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Operation of railway -- private nuisance.
1. The smoke, noise and disturbance which ordinarily attend the proper operation of a railroad at and between stations should not be held a private nuisance to adjacent property affected thereby.
Operation of railway -- adjacent landowner.
2. But as to such incidental railway facilities as shops, roundhouses and switchyards, of the character here involved, the location and operation of which is not determined by public convenience or necessity, the railroad is liable, if thereby a nuisance is imposed upon an adjacent landowner, even though the location of the facility be proper and the operation thereof duly careful.
Operation of railway -- compensation -- Constitution.
3. If the ordinary careful location and operation of such railroad facility as the one here in question creates a private nuisance upon adjacent property, such property is thereby damaged within the purview of the Constitution entitling the owner to compensation.
Question for jury.
4. Under the evidence the question whether the operation of defendant's switchyard imposed a private nuisance upon plaintiff was for the jury.
James A. Peterson and Adolphe C. Peterson, for appellant.
James L. Erdall and Alfred H. Bright, for respondent.
For more than 25 years defendant has owned a 66-foot right of way near what is now the northerly limits of the city of Minneapolis. Upon this right of way is located its main line of railway running west. It crosses Queen Avenue North, a street running north and south, at 47 Avenue North. Proceeding westerly it angles north about 15 degrees. Prior to 1909 the land north of the railroad between Humboldt and Thomas avenues, the former being nine blocks east and the latter three blocks west of Queen avenue, had been platted. South of the right of way the land is also to a large extent platted into city lots. Very few lots were ever built upon. Indeed, the general appearance along the right of way, in the neighborhood described, is that of a farming or truck gardening district. In 1909 plaintiff bought three lots fronting west on Queen avenue; the northerly boundary of these lots is the southerly boundary of defendant's right of way. Soon after the purchase he built a small house thereon which has since been his home. A barn has been erected and some other improvements have been made on the lots. It appears that recently defendant acquired by purchase a strip of land several hundred feet in width immediately north of its right of way, and extending from Humboldt avenue westerly over a mile. Thereafter, in March, 1912, it secured from the city council of Minneapolis the vacation of all streets in the platted portions of this strip. The object of defendant was to locate a switchyard for handling, principally, grain shipments from the west. The yard was constructed in the summer of 1912 and consists of six or seven tracks north of and parallel with the original main track and as close thereto and to each other as they well may be for safe operation. These tracks constitute the receiving yard. Some 200 feet north of these and parallel are some seven or eight tracks, termed the classification yard. All these tracks have suitable switches, leads and passing tracks connecting with each other and the main track. The lead track approaching the classification yard from the west is up grade until it reaches the hump, a point about 600 feet northerly from plaintiff's dwelling. From thence east it is down grade so that cars shunted over the hump will of their own motion run down into the classification yard. As freight trains come in from the west the cars are placed in the receiving yard; and then in the evening a switch engine with crew comes and pulls a string of cars west of the switch for the lead to the classification yard, backs them up the lead to the hump, uncouples and kicks or shunts them in on the proper track to be thereafter taken to the different elevators or places of destination. This work generally lasts until morning. Thus moving cars during the stillness of the hours of night creates a great deal of unusual noise and disturbance. The cars shunted down grade slam into cars previously set out upon the tracks, slack runs in and out with a loud clatter as trains are started and stopped, and the exhaust of the locomotive becomes at times very penetrating. It is plain that the noise is a serious disturbance of the rest and comfort of plaintiff who lives so close to the tracks. Plaintiff sues to recover damages for depreciation of the rental value of his property by the operation of this yard up to the commencement of the action, and for permanent injury, on the ground that the yard is a private nuisance to him. He does not contend that the impairment of the use, enjoyment and value of his property might be avoided or lessened by the exercise of proper care in operating the switch yard. In addition to the disturbing noises incident to the operation of the yard, plaintiff claims that more soot, smoke and cinders are cast upon his premises than was the case before the yard was established. When plaintiff rested the action was dismissed, on defendant's motion. Plaintiff excepted to the ruling and appeals from the judgment.
Before the adoption of the constitutional amendment, providing that compensation must be paid for damaging or destroying private property for public use, as well as for taking the same, it was established by three decisions of this court that no action lies against a railroad company for damages unavoidably resulting to near-by property from the noises, smoke or jarring incident to a proper operation of its railroad upon lands in which the person inconvenienced has an interest. Rochette v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 32 Minn. 201, 20 N.W. 140; Adams v. Chicago, B. & N.R. Co. 39 Minn. 286, 39 N.W. 629, 1 L.R.A. 493, 12 Am. St. 644; Carroll v. Wisconsin Central R. Co. 40 Minn. 168, 41 N.W. 661. In the last-mentioned case Chief Justice Gilfillan states: With the exception of the courts of Nebraska we believe the above rule has been applied, in the face of constitutional provisions similar to the one we now have so far as the operation of a railroad at and between stations is concerned. Reasons, more or less cogent, may be suggested for the rule. Public necessity seems to require a network of railroads penetrating everywhere, and, if every disturbance and inconvenience arising from the lawful and careful operation would give rise to a cause of action, it would disastrously affect the cost and efficiency of transportation. Furthermore along the route of the railroad the annoyance to near-by property owners from noise, smoke, and cinders even on lines of extensive traffic is intermittent and of short duration. A moment or two and the disturbance is over, the atmosphere is pure. Considering the public importance of railroads occasional and passing annoyances from their operation should be borne in silence by the individual subjected thereto. To be sure at stations and terminals the disturbance is more incessant and of longer duration, but it may also be said that the owner of property adjacent thereto has also the benefit of sharing in the advance in values which so often attend the location of depots and railroad terminals and trackage. The greater inconvenience is likely to be offset by greater advantages. Usually population centers around railroad stations and terminal yards and in such neighborhoods more or less smoke, dust, and distracting noises are prevalent. Factories, shops and mills find locations near and create the same discomforts in some degree. A person building a home on a city lot has no assurance that the adjoining lotowner may not erect a factory or warehouse which may sadly interfere with the enjoyment and value of the home. The law does not redress every inconvenience or disturbance to which an owner or occupant may be put by a neighbor's use of his property. The location, the degree of annoyance, its duration and the time of its occurrence are all matters which bear upon the question of whether the law affords a remedy for the damage suffered.
It is not necessary to pursue this subject further, for plaintiff co...
To continue reading
Request your trial