Piper v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,258 - (83) |
| Citation | 133 N.W. 984,116 Minn. 238 |
| Parties | DORA PIPER v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Two actions in the district court for Hennepin county against defendant railway company and Ralph L. Munger, one by Dora Piper, individually, to recover $6,000 for medical services and loss of the services of her minor son, and the other by Dora Piper, as mother of James E. Piper, to recover $25,000 for the son's exclusive benefit. The answers admitted defendant's existence as a railway corporation of Wisconsin, operating a line of railway in the city of Wabasha, but denied the truth of any other allegation in the complaints. The cases were tried before Steele, J., who at the close of the testimony directed verdicts in favor of defendants. From an order denying plaintiff's motions for a new trial, she appealed. Affirmed.
Trespasser on railway property.
One who voluntarily goes on to that part of a railway company's property reserved for its exclusive use, without any license or implied permission so to do, is a trespasser.
Injury to trespasser.
The accident here involved happened to a boy while walking between the main line double tracks of the defendant company. Under the facts as established by the evidence, he was a trespasser.
No liability.
The defendants had no notice of his presence, did not wilfully or wantonly injure him, and are not liable for the injury received by him.
Directed verdict.
The trial judge properly directed a verdict for the defendants.
Larrabee & Davies, for appellant.
F. W Root and Nelson J. Wilcox, for respondents.
James E. Piper, fourteen years of age, had the lower part of his leg crushed by a train owned by the defendant railway company and being operated under the direction of the defendant Munger as conductor. The two actions brought by the mother one to recover for expenses and loss of services, and the other to recover on behalf of her son for his injuries, were tried together. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, on the grounds that the boy was a trespasser at the time he received the injury -- the trainman not having seen him and having no reason to expect that any one would be walking between these tracks -- and that the boy's negligence contributed to cause his injury. From an order denying the motion of the plaintiff for a new trial in each case, this appeal is taken.
The boy received his injury while walking west between the double tracks of the main line of the defendant company about three-fourths of a mile east of Wabasha. A little east from the place of the accident a side or spur track extended from the southerly main track southwesterly into a gravel pit. On this spur track some boarding cars were standing, in which a crew of railway employees lived. The Piper boy was employed by a grocer, and had, on the day of the accident, delivered a sack of flour to this crew. Not receiving the pay for the flour when he delivered it, he returned to the cars between six and seven o'clock that evening, accompanied by a boy named Ross, eleven years of age, collected the money, and started back to his home in the village, walking between the two main tracks beside a moving gravel train which was running on the northerly track at the rate of seven or eight miles an hour in the same direction in which he was walking. At this time it was getting dark -- so dark that small objects could only be seen within a short distance. While so walking, it is claimed by the plaintiff, he was struck on the shoulder by an iron arm or lever which projected out from the line of the cars a distance of approximately one and one-half feet. The boy testified that he was thrown down, and that he rolled or was drawn towards the car by the suction. One leg was run over, making necessary amputation of the leg below the knee.
Walnut street, a traveled highway, crossed the railway tracks about two hundred fifty feet west of the spur track. To reach the boarding cars from this street it was necessary to go on the railway property. On the east side of Walnut street and the southerly side of the railway tracks the wing fence inclosing the right of way did not extend to the tracks. Through the opening so left, and along the south side of the railway tracks, was a traveled way that was used by persons with teams and on foot in going to the boarding cars from Walnut street. There was no path between the double tracks, either east or west of Walnut street, and there was no evidence that any persons walked between those tracks at or near this place, either in going to or coming from these boarding cars, or for any other purpose. In the center of the space between the tracks, at intervals of fifty or one hundred feet, grade stakes projected from ten to sixteen inches above the surface of the ground.
In support of the ruling of the trial judge that the Piper boy was not impliedly permitted by the railway company to walk between the tracks, but was a trespasser, two claims are made by the defendants: First, that the evidence establishes that the accident occurred west of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial