Reams v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 27987.,No. 28109.,27987.,28109. |
| Citation | 180 Minn. 534,231 N.W. 236 |
| Parties | REAMS v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Winona County; Karl Finkelnburg, Judge.
Action by Eva Reams, as special administratrix of the estate of Louis M. Reams, deceased, against the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company. From a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order of the court on the trial at the close of plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Tautges, Wilder & McDonald, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb, and A. C. Erdall, all of Minneapolis, and M. B. Webber, of Winona, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order made by the court on the trial at the close of plaintiff's evidence. There was a motion thereafter made to vacate the order of dismissal, but no motion for a new trial.
Louis M. Reams was a conductor on one of defendant's freight trains. On January 8, 1928, the train of which he was in charge came to the station of Yankton in South Dakota. While the train was slowing down at the station and the caboose was moving along the station platform, he went out of the front door of the caboose to step onto the depot platform. After the caboose had passed, he was found between the edge of the depot platform and the first rail of the track, so injured that he died on January 14, 1928. No witness in the case saw the accident. That decedent left the caboose for some proper purpose of his employment may readily be inferred. The accident happened about 8 o'clock in the morning. There was packed snow and ice between the first rail of the track and the edge of the depot platform, and ice extending therefrom onto the platform for a distance varying from a foot to three or four feet. There was rime or hoarfrost on the depot platform and over the ice that morning. The condition of the platform and track on the day after the accident is shown by the photograph in evidence. It is apparent that melting snow had caused water to stand between the rail and the platform and along and upon the edge of the platform, which had frozen and formed ice. The same condition extended between the rails and across the track and adjoining right of way. The icy condition was general on streets and ways at Yankton. There is evidence that the same condition, except as to the hoarfrost, existed the day before. There is no evidence of any recent rain or snow. From the photograph and evidence, the jury might find that the condition had existed for such length of time that the defendant had ample notice thereof and ample time to remove the ice on the platform or render the place reasonably safe by the use of cinders, ashes, or sand. Cinders appear to have been placed thereon promptly after the accident. The ice on the platform was a thin layer and practically smooth. The packed snow and ice between the platform and the rail was rough, with depressions and ridges therein. The car steps extended to the edge of the platform, and one descending from the car, in the ordinary way, would step upon the platform, and not onto the ice between the platform and the rail. Again, the statement of the decedent, upon which plaintiff relies, was that he slipped on the ice upon the platform. So the condition of the ice outside of the platform is not a factor in the accident.
1. On the issue of negligence, the question presented is whether the icy condition of the depot platform, under the circumstances here shown, would sustain a finding by the jury that the defendant was negligent as a matter of fact.
The action is under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59). The decisions of the federal Supreme Court as to the liability of carriers, under that act, should be and are followed by this court. That court has tersely stated the applicable rules. In Missouri Pacific Rd. Co. v. Aeby, 275 U. S. 426, 48 S. Ct. 177, 179, 72 L. Ed. 351, the court said:
In that case plaintiff was the ticket agent at and in charge of the station. During the night snow and rain had fallen and frozen in depressions on the platform. Early in the morning plaintiff, in the performance of her duties, went upon the platform and slipped and fell on the ice so formed. Negligence on the part of the carrier was held not shown.
In Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Koske, 279 U. S. 7, 49 S. Ct. 202, 204, 73 L. Ed. 578, the rule is again stated as follows:
"The measure of duty owed by defendant to plaintiff was reasonable or ordinary care having regard to the circumstances."
These and other federal cases show that the test to be applied is whether there was a failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care on the part of the defendant to keep its depot platform in a reasonably safe condition. There is no conflict between the decisions of this court and those of the federal Supreme Court on that question. In Gibson v. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 147, 131 N. W. 1057, the law is stated as follows:
"The general rule is that a railway company is not liable to its employees for injuries resulting from climatic conditions, such as ice and snow; but within its yard limits it must exercise a degree of care commensurate with the risks to prevent the accumulation of snow and ice in such quantity, form, and location as to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial