Murran v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1902
• Parties: MURRAN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

86 Minn. 470

90 N.W. 1056

MURRAN

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 20, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; George L. Bunn, Judge.

Action by James Murran against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Held, in a personal injury case, that upon the evidence the question of defendant's negligence, as well as that of plaintiff's contributory negligence, were for the jury, and that the trial court erred which it withdrew these questions and ordered a verdict in defendant's favor. Samuel A. Anderson, for appellant.

F. W. Root (John D. O'Brien, of counsel), for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This is a personal injury case, the appeal being from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial. When, at the trial, the latter rested his case, defendant's counsel also rested, then moved for a verdict in its favor. The court granted the motion, and such a verdict was returned. The plaintiff had been in defendant's employ as a section man in a part of its yard contiguous to the Union Station in St. Paul for about one week before the accident occurred. It was in the winter season, and most of the time he had been engaged in cleaning out snow and ice from the yard switches. In the forenoon of this particular day he went with the foreman and one or two other laborers to a switch upon one of the tracks some 200 feet east of the station shed, and was set at work cleaning out snow and ice which had accumulated therein. The foreman and other men were at the same kind of work not far distant. A very brisk easterly wind was prevailing, blowing about 24 miles as hour. Snow was falling, and to some extent was being blown about in the air, and there was already four or five inches on the ground. While he was thus at work, a switch engine, with eight or ten cars attached, passed easterly, stopping some 300 feet beyond the switch. The engine then commenced to ‘kick’ cars onto defendant's side tracks on the south, between where plaintiff was at work and the river. There was some dispute as to whether cars were kicked westerly over the switch and track at which plaintiff was or over a switch and track nearer the river, but it is not very material where these cars were sent. There was sufficient notification, in any event, for plaintiff admitted that enough transpired to warn him of the risk, and also admitted that he appreciated and understood the danger of working at that point while an engine was east of him throwing cars onto the side tracks. He testified that he kept a careful lookout, knowing that no one was by to warn him of approaching danger, and fully understanding that it was his business, as a section man, to look out for himself while at work in the yard. He kept a constant watch to the east. He then saw the train motionless, about where it first stopped, and, for convenience in getting the snow and ice out from under a cross-bar which connected the two rails, turned his back to the east, and was struck within a half minute by a single car, which had been thrown over the switch he was cleaning out. It appeared that just about the time he turned his back this car was sent in his direction, starting with a speed of ten miles an hour and slowing down to about three miles, when it struck him. No notice or warning was given that it was coming, although the switchman in charge stood on the ground, within a few feet of the car as it ran along,...