Nash v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 29 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 21,019 |
| Parties | EMMA F. NASH v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county by the administratrix of the estate of John Everett Nash, deceased, to recover $25,125 for the death and burial expenses of her intestate. After the judgment, entered pursuant to the verdict, had been reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as stated in the third paragraph of the opinion, plaintiff's motions for a new trial, and for permission to amend the complaint in the manner stated in the opinion, were denied Hanft, J. From an order denying her motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Master and servant -- amendment of complaint not a departure.
1. Where a complaint states a cause of action for damages, under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, for death by wrongful act occurring in the state of Iowa, and plaintiff recovered judgment which was reversed upon appeal, an amendment of complaint eliminating therefrom all allegations relating to interstate commerce and the application of the Federal act, and pleading in lieu thereof certain statutes of the state of Iowa, does not constitute a departure from law to law and the pleading of a new cause of action.
Master and servant -- death by wrongful act -- cause of action.
2. Plaintiff has but one cause of action, viz.: The wrongful act of the defendant in causing the injury to plaintiff's intestate which resulted in his death. This cause of action exists by virtue of the statute which authorizes suit in such cases by the representative of the estate of the deceased person.
Master and servant -- amendment of complaint -- limitation of action.
3. Plaintiff having but one cause of action, the proposed amendment was in support of the original complaint and the statute of limitations affords no defense.
Master and servant -- existence of compensation act matter of defense.
4. That a Workmen's Compensation Law existed in the state of Iowa at the time of the injury is unimportant, it being a matter of defense to be pleaded and its application shown.
Barton & Kay, for appellant.
M. M. Joyce and Donald Evans, for respondent.
Action brought in the district court of Ramsey county to recover under the Federal Employer's Liability Act for the death of plaintiff's husband which occurred on July 15, 1914, as the result of accidental injury to his person received on the seventh day of that month while in the employ of the defendant in the state of Iowa.
It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of his injury plaintiff's intestate was in the employ of and at work as a bridge hand for the defendant on its line of interstate railway in the state of Iowa; that the work in which he was engaged was in connection with and a part of interstate commerce in which the defendant was then engaged; that the defendant negligently furnished to and for use by the bridge crew of which the deceased was a member a certain gasolene car; that it negligently permitted the control lever and machinery of said car to be and remain in such defective condition that when the car was pushed or moved along upon the track the engine would automatically go into operation; that while the plaintiff's intestate was engaged in the duties of his employment the defendant, through one of its servants, a member of such bridge crew, negligently caused said car to be pushed along and upon its track and put into operation so that said car was carelessly and negligently run against and upon the plaintiff's intestate, thereby causing the injury which resulted in his death, all without fault or negligence upon his part.
The plaintiff recovered a verdict upon which judgment was entered. The judgment so entered was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States (242 U.S. 619, 37 S.Ct. 239, 61 L.Ed. 531), upon the ground that decedent was not, at the time of his injury, engaged in interstate commerce, and therefore the Federal act did not apply. Pursuant to the order of that court a mandate was issued from this court and filed with the district court on February 1, 1918,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. St. L.-S.F. Railway Co.
...86; Wabash Railroad v. Hayes, 234 U.S. 86; M.K. & T. Railroad v. Wulff, 226 U.S. 570; O'Dell v. Southern Railroad, 248 Fed. 343; Nash v. Railroad 141 Minn. 148; Midland Valley Railroad v. Ennis, 159 S.W. 214. See, also. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 323, and Lanis v. Railr......