Minnesota Iron Company v. Mark Kline

• Decision Date: 18 December 1905
• Docket Number: No. 96,96
• Citation: 199 U.S. 593,50 L.Ed. 322,26 S.Ct. 159
• Parties: MINNESOTA IRON COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. MARK M. KLINE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

199 U.S. 593

26 S.Ct. 159

50 L.Ed. 322

MINNESOTA IRON COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v MARK M. KLINE.

No. 96.

Argued December 5, 1905.

Decided December 18, 1905.

Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg, W. W. Billson, and Joseph B. Cotton for plaintiff in error.

Messrs.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 593-595 intentionally omitted] Samuel A. Anderson and George M. Nelson for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for the loss of an arm by the plaintiff, the defendant in error, while repairing an engine of the defendant, through the negligence of a fellow servant. A statute of Minnesota reads as follows: 'Every railroad corporation owning or operating a railroad in this state shall be liable for all damages sustained by any agent or servant thereof by reason of the negligence of any other agent or servant thereof, without contributory negligence on his part, when sustained within this state, and no contract, rule, or regulation between such corporation and any agent or servant shall impair or diminish such liability; provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to render any railroad company liable for damages sustained by any employee, agent, or servant while engaged in the construction of a new road, or any part thereof, not open to public travel or use.' Minn. Gen. Stat. 1894, § 2701. The track on which the accident happened was a narrow gauge track, on which dump cars were run by the defendant, a mining company, for the purpose of stripping the earth from the surface of its mine. The plaintiff had a verdict which afterwards was set aside by the trial court on the ground that if the statute were construed to apply to this case it would be contrary to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This ruling was reversed by the supreme court of the state and judgment was entered on the verdict. 93 Minn. 63, 100 N. W. 681. The case then was brought here.

The supreme court of Minnesota construed the act to apply to this case, and held it constitutional when so construed. Of course, if the statute as interpreted is not within the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment, we do not interfere with the construction adopted by the state court. The state court held that the act was confined to the dangers peculiar to railroads, and did not discriminate against railroad companies merely as such. It read the proviso as only exempting incomplete roads, marking the time when the statute should take effect, and not as confining it to roads intended for public travel. Before us it was argued that when the statute was passed there were no private railroads in the state, and that, if the proviso is taken to mean what the court said, the discrimination is senseless and unjustified; whereas, if it be taken to confine the statute to public roads after public travel has begun,...