Moon v. N. Pac. R. Co.

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: VANDERBURGH
• Citation: Moon v. N. Pac. R. Co., 46 Minn. 106, 48 N.W. 679 (Minn. 1891)
• Decision Date: 23 April 1891
• Parties: MOON v NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

46 Minn. 106

48 N.W. 679

MOONvNORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 23, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where, as between connecting lines of railway, the corporations controlling them are mutually bound to transport loaded freight-cars over their respective roads, such duty is necessarily subject to proper rules and regulations, and involves mutual obligations, among which is that of due diligence to provide safe cars for delivery to the servants of the company operating the connecting line to which they are transferred, and who would be exposed to danger from their defective or unsafe condition.

2. The corporation receiving such cars is also subject to liabilities and duties to its servants growing out of the acceptance, possession, and subsequent use thereof. But the negligence of the latter does not relieve the former from liability for injuries resulting from its own negligence.

3. Where a brake upon a freight-car so transferred by the corporation owning it was out of repair and unsafe for use, and the same had not been inspected with due care before delivery to the servants of a connecting company, and in consequence of such defect a brakeman was injured without fault on his part, held, that an action would lie for the injury against the first-named company.

4. Held, also, that the questions as to the condition of the brake, the length of time it had been out of repair, and whether it had been inspected with due care, were properly submitted to the jury.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; WILKIN, Judge.

F. S. Kirkpatrick, (John C. Bullitt, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.

Lovely & Trask, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

Plaintiff's interstate, who was a brakeman in the employ of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Company, was killed while attempting to set a brake upon a loaded freight-car of the defendant, Northern Pacific Railroad Company, which had been transferred by the latter to the track of the Manitoba Company in the village of Morris, in this state, for transportation over the road of the latter to a point thereon. There was a traffic arrangement existing between these two companies in pursuance of which loaded freight-cars were mutually transferred and transported over their respective lines, and cars of the Northern Pacific Company, destined to points on the Manitoba road, were transferred from its line to a side track, in the yard of the latter company at Morris, designated and set apart as a transfer track, whence, if in good order, they were placed in its trains by that company, and transported to particular stations. The car in question was loaded with wood to be shipped to Herman, a station on the Manitoba road a few miles west of Morris. When it arrived at Morris, on the 3d day of April, it was placed on the transfer track in the yard of the Manitoba Company, above referred to. According to the rule adopted by the companies, such cars were required to be inspected by the car inspectors of both on that track, and, if any repairs were needed, they were required to be made by the Northern Pacific Company before they were transferred and received by the Manitoba Company. Accordingly this car was so inspected by the car inspectors on the morning of April 4th. It was examined by them together at the same time, and they agreed that it was in good order. In the afternoon of the same day, the car was taken off this track by the Manitoba Company, to be placed in a train for transportation, and was switched onto another track, where the conductor ordered the deceased to set the brake on it so as to hold it securely on a descending grade. The brake-staff proved defective, and was insufficient to hold the loaded car in its place, but broke and precipitated him upon the track, and he was run over. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the brake-staff was cracked and partly broken before its use at the time of the injury, and that the defendant, Northern Pacific Railroad, is liable in damages for negligence in permitting it to be out of repair and unsafe, and also that the car was not properly or carefully inspected by the inspectors of the respective companies, and that the work was superficially and negligently done. The action was brought against both companies, but a verdict was recovered against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company only.

1. We are to inquire whether the relations of the deceased as an employe of the Manitoba Company to the defendant, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, were such as to entitle plaintiff to maintain an action against the latter for its alleged negligence. As respects the transportation of freight in bulk from stations on one line to those on the other, the two roads are operated together, and it is immaterial whether such transportation by connecting lines is carried on in obedience to a statute, their common-law duty as carriers, or by mutual agreement; neither company is obliged to draw the cars of the other over its line, if they are unsafe or out of repair. Mackin v. Railroad Co., 135 Mass. 201;Gottlieb v. Railroad Co., 100 N. Y. 469, 3 N. E. Rep. 344. It is, then, the primary duty of the company seeking such transportation to use due diligence to provide cars reasonably safe for the service contemplated. The rule above referred to, adopted by these companies, requiring the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to inspect and repair cars before transfer and acceptance, is a recognition of this duty. But such duty is not limited to the corporations as such, but extends to and is owed to the servants, who must necessarily handle the cars, and who are exposed to danger arising from their unsafe or defective condition. One may owe two distinct duties in respect to the same thing,-one of a special character to one person, growing out of special relations to him; and another of a general character, to those who would necessarily be exposed to risk and danger from the negligent discharge of such duty. 1 Shear & R. Neg. § 116; Bigelow, Cas., Torts, 614. Subject to proper limitations, the rule generally stated is that if a reasonable man must see that, if he did not use due care in the circumstances, he might cause injury to the...