Nordquist v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Citation: 89 Minn. 485
• Decision Date: 05 June 1903
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,514-(84).,s. 13,514-(84).
• Parties: ULRIK NORDQUIST v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

89 Minn. 485

ULRIK NORDQUIST v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 13,514-(84).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 5, 1903.

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $20,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before McGee, J.,

who directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

John Lind and A. Ueland, for appellant.

W. E. Dodge and Charles S. Albert, for respondent.

START, C. J.

On September 11, 1901, the plaintiff, who was then an employee of the defendant as a conductor on its freight trains, was taking a freight train through a tunnel in the main range of the Cascade Mountains in the state of Washington. The train became unmanageable by reason of the failure of the air brakes to work properly, and ran at a dangerous rate of speed through the tunnel to a point below, where it left the rails at a curve in the roadbed, and was thrown down the mountain side, and demolished. The result of the accident was that several persons, including the engineer and fireman of the train, were killed, and the plaintiff's skull was fractured in two places, and his right arm crushed so that it had to be amputated. He brought this action to recover damages for such injuries on the ground that they were caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant in failing to light the tunnel and in omitting to construct and operate a safety switch at or near Wellington between the western portal of the tunnel and the curve in the roadbed where the train left the rails. The answer denied any negligence on the part of the defendant, and alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were due solely to his own negligence.

The defendant, on the trial of the action, and at the close of the evidence, requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, for the reason that the evidence did not show any negligence on the part of the defendant, but did conclusively show that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence contributing to his injury, and that he assumed the risk. The court expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, but granted the request, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a finding of negligence on its part. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence as to the construction of the tunnel, the grade of the roadbed and its curves, is undisputed. The tunnel is two and sixty-two one-hundredths miles in length, sixteen feet wide, with perpendicular sides twelve feet high from the top of the rails, and arched to a radius of eight feet, so that from the top of the rails to the apex of the crown it is twenty feet. The roadbed through the tunnel from east to west and for some twenty miles below is on a sharp downgrade approximating as an operating grade two and two-tenths per cent., the maximum grade elsewhere on the defendant's railway line. There are numerous and frequent curves in the roadbed for twenty miles next below the tunnel. The station at the east entrance of the tunnel is known as "Cascade Tunnel," and the one at the west entrance, which is about one-eighth of a mile below, is "Wellington." A mile and one-half below this station is the curve where the train left the rails. There are, including this curve, seven curves in the roadbed between the western entrance of the tunnel and the place of the accident. It is apparent that the tunnel in connection with the roadbed for twenty miles below was a place of great and peculiar danger through and down which to operate heavy freight trains. This was recognized by defendant, and, in addition to its general rules...