Reeves v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

Decision Date29 October 1920
Docket NumberNo. 21889.,21889.
Citation179 N.W. 689,147 Minn. 114
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
PartiesREEVES v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.

Action by Agnes J. Reeves, as administrator of Floyd A. Reeves, deceased against the Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Verdict for defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Following Slater v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. Ry. Co., 178 N. W. 813, it is held that the presence of a piece of coal upon a step leading to a locomotive cab does not constitute a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8617-8619, 8621-8623).

Nor does the federal ‘Boiler Inspection Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8630-8639), so called, guarantee the employé against such obstruction.

That an employé engaged in interstate commerce met accidental death by stepping on a chunk of coal upon the steps leading up to a locomotive cab is not prima facie proof of the employer's negligence under the rule of res ipsa loquitur.George C. Stiles, of Minneapolis (F. M. Miner, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.

Richard L. Kennedy, of St. Paul, and Donald Evans, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

There was a directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from the order denying a new trial.

[1] The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company is the owner of railroad switchyards in Sioux City, Iowa, a division terminal where its trains, as well as those of defendant, are received, broken up, and made up. Under some arrangement all the switching in these yards is done by defendant for both railroads. Two of the switchyards are north of Dace street and one, called the stockyard, is two or three blocks southeast of that street. Main and passing tracks connect the yards. Plaintiff's intestate, Floyd A. Reeves, was in the employ of defendant as a nightyard foreman. The Northwestern Company has a regular freight train, known as No. 254, which daily leaves the yards north of Dace street at about 8 p. m., with cars destined for Chicago and intermediate eastern points, thence proceeds to the stockyards, and attaches the cars there set out by defendant for the same destination. On the evening of May 13, 1918, Mr. Reeves and his crew had been switching in the yards north of Dace street, and as they proceeded south to the stockyard he dropped off at that street. The crew passed on to the stockyard, and gathered 18 cars ready to go into No. 254. At about 8 o'clock p. m. the regular crew of No. 254, employés of the Northwestern Company, started from one of the yards north of Dace street with the engine and 10 cars, moved south towards the stockyard to receive in the train the 18 cars collected by Reeves' crew. In the meantime Reeves was waiting a block or so south of Dace street, and when No. 254 approached he attempted to board the engine, missed his footing, and was killed. The evidence is clear that he did not give a stop signal to the engineer in charge of the train. The jury could have found that Mr. Reeves had authority to direct the movements of No. 254 within the yard limits, that the accident happened within such limits, and that he intended to give the engineer some direction with reference to two of the cars to be attached to the train. It may also be conceded, for the purposes of this appeal, that the jury could have found that a piece of coal on the lower step leading up to the gangway of the engine cab caused Mr. Reeves to fall.

Two contentions are made by appellant: The presence of the coal on the step was a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8617-8619, 8621-8623); but, if not, its presence was prima facie evidence of negligence.

That the presence of a piece of coal on the step mentioned does not prove a violation of the federal Safety Appliance Act must follow from the construction given the statute in Slater v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 178 N. W. 813. No defect was claimed in the step. The only thing that rendered it dangerous was a foreign body that had found a temporary lodgment thereon.

[2] Plaintiff also contended that the federal ‘Boiler Inspection Act,’ so called (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8630-8639), as amended in 1915 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8639a-8639d), so as to ‘apply to and include the entire locomotive and tender and all parts and appurtenances thereof,’ and which makes it unlawful to use any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., 32085.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1934
    ...(2d) 487; Noftz v. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 389; 11 Roberts, Federal Liability of Carriers (2 Ed.), sec. 666, p. 1266; Reeves v. Ry. Co., 179 N.W. 689. (3) The court committed error in giving plaintiff's Instruction numbered 1 for the reason that it submitted plaintiff's case on the issue of c......
  • Riley v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1931
    ...in ignoring the defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Erie Railroad Co. v. Lindquist, 27 Fed. (2d) 98; Reeves v. Ry. Co., 179 N.W. 689; Patterson v. Director General, 105 S.E. 746; Boghich v. Railroad Co., 26 Fed. (2d) 361. (4) The defendant was not liable to plaintiff ......
  • Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1943
    ...F.2d 342 (grease on a locomotive grab-iron held no violation of Safety Appliance and Boiler Inspection Acts); Reeves v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.R. Co., 147 Minn. 114, 179 N.W. 689 (presence of a coal upon a step leading to the locomotive cab held no violation of Safety Appliance and Boiler ......
  • Zachritz v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1935
    ...Mo. 923; authorities cited point 2 (d), supra; Ford v. Railroad Co., 54 F.2d 344, certiorari denied 285 U.S. 549, 52 S.Ct. 405; Reeves v. Ry. Co., 179 N.W. 689; Slater v. Co., 178 N.W. 815; O'Dea v. Byram, 222 N.W. 520. (b) Common-law negligence in respect to the presence of oil or grease o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT