Morrow v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1896
• Citation: 65 Minn. 382,67 N.W. 1002
• Parties: MORROW v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

65 Minn. 382

67 N.W. 1002

MORROWvST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where the trial court assigns an insufficient reason in support of its order granting a new trial, the order will not be reversed if it appears from the record that prejudicial errors of law occurred on the trial, which were excepted to.

2. Held, that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury in this case the question whether the defendant furnished the plaintiff's intestate (an employé of the defendant) a safe place in which to work, for the reason that such question was not one of the issues under the pleadings.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; John W. Willis, Judge.

Action by Mary Morrow, as administratrix of George Morrow, against the St. Paul City Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. D. & T. D. O'Brien, for appellant.

Munn, Boyeson & Thygeson, for respondent.

START, C. J.

The plaintiff's intestate, George Morrow, was on March 22, 1895, a conductor in the employ of the defendant, on one of its electric car lines, known as the “Selby Avenue Extension,” which connected with its cable line at Milton street, in the city of St. Paul. While he was engaged, on the day named, in transferring his car from one track to another on the electric line, a cable train collided with the electric car, whereby he received injuries from which he died two days thereafter. This action was brought by his administratrix, to recover damages for his death, on the ground that it was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The specific and only acts of negligence on the part of the defendant charged in the complaint are that the gripman operating the cable train was incompetent and unable to manage the same, to the knowledge of the defendant; that the cable, machinery, and appliances furnished by the defendant to propel, control, and operate the cable train were insufficient and defective. These allegations were put in issue by the answer. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,500, and the defendant moved the court for a new trial, on the ground, among others, that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and for errors of law occurring on the trial, and excepted to by the defendant. The motion was granted in general terms, without specifying the particular grounds therefor; but, in his memorandum attached to the order granting the...