Olson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 01 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,676 - (47) |
| Parties | HANS OLSON v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Clay county by Hans Olson, as administrator of the estate of Ole H. Olson, deceased, to recover two thousand dollars for the death of plaintiff's intestate. The case was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. Thereafter, pursuant to an order of said court judgment notwithstanding the verdict was entered in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Railway Crossing -- Pedestrian -- Failure to Look.
In an action for injuries to plaintiff's intestate, who was run upon by one of defendant's trains at a railway crossing, held, that the evidence affirmatively shows that the injured person failed to use his sense of sight while walking upon such crossing in advance of a rapidly-moving train; following Schneider v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 81 Minn. 383.
Contributory Negligence.
For the failure of plaintiff's intestate to exercise ordinary care in thus exposing himself to danger, it is held that he contributed to his own injury to such an extent as to prevent a recovery in this action.
Wilful Act -- No Evidence for Jury.
Evidence considered, and held, that it does not tend to disclose a wilful intent on the part of the servants operating defendant's engine at the crossing to injure plaintiff's intestate, nor of such recklessness or disregard of his safety as to justify a submission of that issue to the jury.
Gay Halvorson, H. Steenerson and Charles Loring, for appellant.
C. W. Bunn and L. T. Chamberlain, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's intestate at defendant's railway crossing over a street in the village of Hawley. Plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the same, under the statute (Laws 1895, c. 320), which was directed in its favor. From this judgment plaintiff appeals, bringing the entire record, including the evidence, into this court for review.
Hawley is a village of seven hundred inhabitants, having a station depot, with platforms surrounding the same; also the side tracks usual at such places. To understand the real question presented on this review it is necessary to state that the principal thoroughfare of Hawley (Sixth street), upon which the stores and public places are situated, runs north and south across the main track of defendant's road adjacent to the west side of the depot platform. The main track runs east and west past the south front of the depot. North of the main track, and fifty-three feet distant from the same, is a side track, which has been designated as the "passing" track. The depot is surrounded by platforms, and adjacent to the same along the west side of Sixth street is a sidewalk running north and south over the several tracks at the station.
At the time in question, October 12, 1899, plaintiff's intestate, who was thoroughly familiar with the situation above described, had occasion to pass over the railway crossing upon the sidewalk referred to. He walked from the north of the passing track southerly along the sidewalk. At the instant he stepped upon the main track he was struck by defendant's engine, hauling a freight train of sixty-five cars, coming from the east, and running at the rate of thirty to thirty-five miles an hour. About ten minutes previous to the injury to intestate, one of defendant's passenger trains had preceded the freight going east, and the jury were probably authorized to find that both trains made considerable noise before and at the time of the accident, which might have prevented intestate from distinguishing either from the sound occasioned thereby.
The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial