Merritt v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 06 December 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,271 - (101) |
| Citation | 84 N.W. 321,81 Minn. 496 |
| Parties | CHARLES H. MERRITT v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Kandiyohi county to recover $25,000 damages for personal injuries. The case was tried before Qvale, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,000. From an order granting a motion for judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding the verdict plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Management of Railway Train -- Company Rules.
In the operation of railroad trains, where the company rules charge both the conductor and engineer with the control and management of their trains, if one assumes to attend to an act within their common line of duties, which act may be performed by one, the other may rely upon the presumption that such act was properly performed. Rule applied in this case, and held that the engineer had a right to assume that the conductor and trainmen had repaired a leaky air pipe without cutting off the air brake from part of the train.
Personal Injury to Engineer -- Contributory Negligence.
The plaintiff, as an engineer, was by the rules of the company made responsible for the control and management of his train was obliged to make proper tests of the air brakes at grades and stations, and have his train under control while approaching stations; running an inferior extra train, he was charged with the duty of knowing the position of all regular trains, they having the right of way. Having approached a station at the rate of twenty-five miles an hour, and collided with a regular train, held, under the circumstances of this case, that he was guilty of contributory negligence.
Judgment for Defendant.
Such negligence in the care and management of his train appears conclusively from plaintiff's own personal statements and theory of the accident, and there is no reasonable probability of a different line of evidence or theory being produced in good faith at another trial, and the order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be sustained.
F. D. Larrabee, for appellant.
C. Wellington, for respondent.
Plaintiff was an engineer in the employ of the defendant company. On February 27, 1899, he was ordered to run an extra freight train from St. Cloud to Clearwater Junction. The train consisted of five box cars and a caboose, which, with the exception of the latter, were equipped with air brakes. The train crew consisted of the plaintiff, as engineer, a fireman, two brakemen, and a conductor. A short distance out from St. Cloud the air pipes sprung a leak, and the train was stopped. The conductor and brakeman, who were at the rear end, instead of repairing the leak, cut off the air from the three rear cars, leaving the air brake to apply to the two front cars only, but they did not notify the fireman or engineer of that fact. The train proceeded, and about two hours later was approaching Osseo station at a rapid speed, when, discovering that a train was upon the main track in front of him, the plaintiff, seeing that a collision was inevitable, applied the air, and jumped from the engine, receiving the injuries complained of. Plaintiff had a verdict, the court granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and plaintiff appealed.
The questions presented for review in this case must be considered with reference to the order for judgment non obstante. To sustain this order, it must conclusively appear that the defendant was not guilty of negligence, or, if such is not the fact, then that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Such result must not only be established conclusively from the evidence taken upon this trial, but it must also appear that from the very nature of the charge made against the defendant, and the circumstances connected with it, there is no reasonable probability that upon another trial any substantially different evidence would be produced.
Appellant's theory of recovery is that if the air brakes had been adjusted to, and not cut off from, the three rear cars, he could have controlled and stopped the train in time to avoid the collision, and that so arranging the brakes without notifying him constituted an act of negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. The rules of the company provided that the conductors should be responsible for the safety, prompt movement, and proper care of their trains, and for the conduct of the men employed thereon; also that they must be familiar with the duties of the enginemen, firemen, baggagemen, and brakemen, and enforce the rules applicable to them upon their trains. As to enginemen, the rules make them equally responsible with the conductor for the safety of the train, and for the movements of the same in strict compliance with the rules, and they must decline to obey any orders which involve peril to the train or violation of the rules.
To continue reading
Request your trial