Olson v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 30 March 1891 |
| Parties | Andrew S. Olson v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Washington county, McCluer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after a verdict of $ 10,000 for plaintiff.
Order affirmed.
Wm. H Bliss and J. N. Castle, for appellant.
Arctander & Arctander and Fayette Marsh, for respondent.
The plaintiff's foot was caught and injured between the bumpers of freight-cars while climbing into one containing live-stock which he claims was under his charge, through the alleged negligence of the defendant, in the sudden and unexpected movement of the train, without any signal or notice. The stock, including horses and cattle, belonged to one Newhaus, and was being transported in two cars from Appleton, on the Manitoba road, to Hinckley, on the defendant's road, and from that station to Duluth by the defendant company. The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that he assisted Newhaus in loading his stock, and that afterwards he went on board one of these cars at the request of Newhaus, to accompany and help care for the stock, and continued to occupy the same car until he was hurt. After passing Hinckley, he was in the car where the horses were with no other attendant, and was noticed by the conductor of the train, and, in response to an inquiry of the latter informed him that he was there in charge of the horses. The conductor, however, demanded his ticket, and notified him that he must either get out of the car or pay his fare. Plaintiff then handed five dollars to the conductor, who received it, and promised to get and return him the change. They were then at Finlayson, where the accident subsequently occurred, and where the conductor informed the plaintiff that the train would remain an hour or more. Plaintiff thereupon left the train, for a drink of water as he says, and soon after, observing that one of the horses was loose in the car biting and teasing the others, he started back for the purpose of climbing into the car again in order to secure the horse, when he met the conductor in charge of the train, and informed him that the horse had got loose again in the car and inquired of him if it would be safe to go in there and tie him up, to which the conductor replied: "Yes, you are perfectly safe, for the train is not going to stir before the passenger comes up." Relying on this assurance, as he says, he went between the cars, climbed up over the couplings, slid back the door, the only means of ingress, and was in the act of entering, when the train started with a sudden jerk, and he fell back between the cars, and his foot was caught and crushed between the bumpers. The foregoing is substantially the case as presented by the plaintiff's evidence. There is a sharp conflict between the testimony of the plaintiff and the conductor, who denies that he either expressly or impliedly consented to the plaintiff's riding in or returning to the stock-car, or that he had any conversation with plaintiff in respect to the movement of the train. There is a conflict also between the witnesses as to whether the train was standing on the side or main track. One of the defendant's witnesses testified that one of the horses was loose, as sworn to by the plaintiff, and one also agreed with him as to the location of the train on the side track at the time of the accident. But this is important only as affecting the credibility of the witnesses. The leading questions of fact, whether the plaintiff was charged...
To continue reading
Request your trial