Miller v. Truesdale

• Decision Date: 19 January 1894
• Parties: MILLER v. TRUESDALE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

56 Minn. 274

57 N.W. 661

MILLER

v.TRUESDALE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 19, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. It is true, as a general proposition, that one who is struck at a railway crossing by a moving train, which must have been plainly visible from the point he occupied when it became his duty to look and listen, must be conclusively presumed not to have looked, or, if he did, to have negligently disregarded the knowledge thus obtained; and the mere fact that he says he looked and saw nothing, would not, under such circumstances, justify the jury in finding that it was true.

2. But held that the evidence in this case was not of that conclusive character.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Russell, Judge.

Action by Fred Miller against W. H. Truesdale, as receiver of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. E. Clarke and W. F. Booth, for appellant.

Weed Munro, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action for damages resulting from a collision between plaintiff's wagon and team and a railway train at a highway crossing in the immediate vicinity of Eden Prairie Station. The collision was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant's servants in failing to give any signal of the approach of the train. No claim is made that the evidence was not sufficient to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. It tends strongly to show that the engineer, being otherwise engaged, and not on the lookout, was not aware that he was near the station or crossing, and hence failed to give any signal of the approach of the train, which was running at the very unusual rate of 45 to 50 miles an hour.

The sole point made by defendant is that the evidence conclusively shows that plaintiff himself was guilty of contributory negligence, in failing “to look and listen” before attempting to cross the railway. The plaintiff testified positively that he stopped twice, and looked and listened,-once when about 60 feet, and again about 25 or 30 feet, from the crossing,-and neither saw nor heard the train. If this testimony was true, it amply justified the jury in finding that plaintiff exercised reasonable care; but defendant's contention is that the uncontradicted evidence conclusively shows that the train must have been plainly visible from the point or points which plaintiff occupied when it became his duty to look and listen, and hence it must be conclusively presumed either that he disregarded that rule of common prudence, or, if he did look, that he heedlessly disregarded the knowledge thus obtained, and negligently went into an obvious danger, and that the fact that he says he looked, and saw nothing, when it is clear that, if he had looked, he would have seen the train,...