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

• Decision Date: 17 July 1891
• Citation: 49 N.W. 302,47 Minn. 9
• Parties: PEARSON v CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 9

49 N.W. 302

PEARSONvCHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 17, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A crew of sectionmen, of which plaintiff was one, was engaged in loading railroad iron from the ground upon a flat-car, when some of the crew negligently let one of the iron rails fall upon plaintiff's arm. Held, that the injury was not the result of any danger peculiar to or directly connected with the use and operation of the railroad, and hence not within the provisions of chapter 13, Laws 1887, making railroad companies liable to an employe for injuries caused by the negligence of a co-employe.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HICKS, Judge.

F. D. Larrabee, for appellant.

W. H. Norris, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in the employment of the defendant, through the negligence of his co-employes. When the plaintiff's counsel closed his opening statement to the jury, the court dismissed the action upon the ground that upon the facts stated the defendant was not liable. The only question is whether the case comes within the provisions of chapter 13, Laws 1887, making railroad companies liable to an employe for injuries caused by the negligence of a co-employe. Briefly stated, the facts were that a crew of sectionmen, of which plaintiff was one, was engaged in loading railroad iron from the ground upon a flat car, when some of the crew negligently let one of the iron rails fall upon plaintiff's arm. As is well understood, the general duty of sectionmen is to repair the railway track and road-bed, and the iron which they were loading in this instance was designed to replace other iron to be removed from the track. The construction of this act has been considered by us in several cases, in which we have invariably held that it applies only to the peculiar hazards incident to the use and operation of railroads, and was designed exclusively for the benefit of those who, in the course of their employment, are exposed to such hazards, and whose injuries are caused thereby; in short, that the statute includes only the cases of servants exposed to and injured by the dangers peculiar to the use and operation of railroads. It is not necessary to recur again to the reasons which led us to adopt this construction. In Lavallee v. Railway Co., 40 Minn. 249,41 N. W. Rep. 974, the decedent, who was employed as a boiler-maker's helper in the railroad shops, was directed by the boiler-maker to pick up some rubbish near a dead locomotive then standing on a track which ran into the boiler-shop. While so engaged, the smoke-stack (which two men were removing) fell upon him and killed him. We held that the case did not come within the statute. In Johnson v....