Miller v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1890 |
| Citation | 42 Minn. 454 |
| Parties | CHARLES T. MILLER <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
H. J. Horn, for appellant.
Erwin & Wellington and M. D. Munn, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the defendant from an order refusing a new trial. The action is for the recovery of damages for injuries received by the plaintiff in April, 1888, while attempting to get upon one of the defendant's street-cars, to be carried as a passenger. The cause of action relied upon is the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its cars running upon another track, and in the opposite direction from that in which the car was going upon which plaintiff attempted to take passage. The defendant, putting in issue the allegation of its negligence, also alleges in its defence that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The following statement of facts will be sufficient for the purposes of this decision: This is a cable-car line, the cars being operated by a cable propelled by steam-power, and to which the cars are attached by what is called the "grip," managed by a lever in the forward or grip-car. This is also supplied with a brake. This mechanism is in charge of a man known as the "gripman." Another car is run in the rear of the grip-car. In the night a head-light of strong power is carried at the forward end of the grip-car. This is much brighter than the street lights, and is readily distinguishable from them. At the place of the accident the cable tracks run east and west along the central part of Selby avenue, which near this point crosses Western avenue at right angles. There are two tracks, the south track being used for trains going east, and the north track for trains going west. These tracks are a little less than five feet apart. The cars project outside of the rails some eighteen inches, so that when cars are passing each other on the two tracks there would be a little less than two feet of space between them. The streets at the place of the accident were unpaved, and were very muddy on both the north and south sides of the car tracks; but the space between the two car-line tracks had been paved. For some time before this, as the evidence went to show, passengers had to some extent used this paved middle space, both in embarking upon the cars and in getting off them. The rear coach was, however, provided with gates on its platforms, closed on the inner side, — the side next the opposite track, — so that passengers could not well enter or disembark on that side. The grip-car, which was also used for passengers, was open, and equally accessible on either side. The accident occurred in the evening, after it had become dark. The plaintiff came to Selby avenue at the western side of the crossing of Western, for the purpose of taking the cars going east. Because of the exceedingly muddy condition of the street, he crossed to the paved space between the tracks, and walked east, a little past the eastern limit of Western avenue, and there waited for his approaching train, which he signalled to stop. Another man stood at his side, between the tracks, and just east of him. Other...
To continue reading
Request your trial