Peery v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 31 December 1914
• Docket Number: 18,946 - (168)
• Parties: ROBERT H. PEERY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

150 N.W. 382

128 Minn. 119

ROBERT H. PEERY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

Nos. 18,946 - (168)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 31, 1914

On Appeal February 5, 1915.

After the former appeal, reported in 123 Minn. 264, 143 N.W. 724 the case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $12,000. Defendant's motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict was denied. Its motion for a new trial was denied, if plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict from $12,000 to $9,000. From that order defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Federal Employer's Liability Act.

1. Ruling on a former appeal in this case, that it is within the operation of the Federal Employer's Liability Act adhered to.

Reading pleadings to the jury error.

2. The failure of the trial court to heed the views of this court, heretofore expressed, with regard to reading pleadings to the jury in the course of the charge, held error, but not prejudicial so as to warrant reversal.

Damages not excessive.

3. Verdict of $9,000, reduced by the trial court from $12,000, held not excessive, in an action by a railroad conductor for damages sustained through the negligence of defendant.

Butler & Mitchell, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson and A. F. Storey, for respondent.

OPINION

PHILIP E. BROWN, J.

In this, an action for personal injuries based upon the Federal Employer's Liability Act, plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion.

1. The case was here on plaintiff's appeal, reported in 123 Minn. 264, 143 N.W. 724, where the facts are stated and it was held, upon substantially the same evidence presented by the present record, that the Federal act applied, or at least that its applicability should have been submitted to the jury; the only new fact brought out on the second trial in this connection being that plaintiff, a freight conductor, at the time of his injury, was making out his reports showing the amount and causes of delays at or between stations, covering the entire trip from and back to Paducah.

Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to justify a finding that plaintiff, when injured, was either employed or engaged in interstate commerce, and, further, that in any event it was error to determine this question in his favor as a matter of law as the court below did, instead of submitting it to the jury. Taking up the latter question first, we find no error. The facts being undisputed and the inferences clear, there was nothing for the jury to pass on in this connection.

On the main question, defendant urges that the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in Illinois Central R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473, 34 S.Ct. 646, 58 L.Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, rendered since the case was here before, requires the overruling of our former holding. In Cousins v. Illinois Central R. Co. 126 Minn. 172, 148 N.W. 58, the Behrens case was considered in connection with the Pedersen case, 229 U.S. 146, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, on which the decision on plaintiff's appeal was largely based, Mr. Justice Bunn saying [p. 175]:

"Counsel for defendant correctly say that the decision in the Pedersen case has apparently warranted the conclusion that the Federal Supreme Court would ultimately construe the act of Congress as applicable to practically all employees of interstate railroads, except possibly those engaged in the work of new construction of instrumentalities as distinguished from repairs upon old instrumentalities. But they refer to the case of Illinois Central R. Co. v. Behrens, 233 U.S 473, 34 S.Ct. 646, 58 L.Ed. 1051, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 163, decided by the Supreme Court April 27, 1914, as indicating a less liberal construction of the act. We do not...