Rifley v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1898
• Docket Number: Nos. 11,137 - (159).,s. 11,137 - (159).
• Citation: 72 Minn. 469
• Parties: HARRY RIFLEY v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 469

72 Minn. 469

HARRY RIFLEY v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY.

Nos. 11,137 - (159).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 7, 1898.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Tarbox, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,000. Affirmed.

Albert E. Clarke and Wilbur F. Booth, for appellant.

F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a switchman, and was at work in its yards at Minneapolis. The switch engine was pushing several cars ahead of it on the lead track, for the purpose of coupling the car furthest ahead to another car standing on one of the connecting switch tracks. The train was not moving as fast as a man could walk, and plaintiff walked along on the track just in front of said moving car furthest ahead, for the purpose of adjusting the knuckle of the Janney coupler on the front end of that car, so that it could be coupled to said standing car; and while he was thus walking along, adjusting the coupler, he slipped on the track, fell, and his leg was cut off by the moving car. He brought this action to recover damages for the injury. On the trial, he recovered a verdict; and, from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

1. The evidence introduced by plaintiff tends to prove that between the rails of the track on which he was walking there was a narrow ridge of ice, the top of which was about two inches higher than the top of the rails; that, before the ice had formed, the snow had been taken out next to each rail on the inside of the rail, leaving the snow in the middle of the track, where it became wet, and was packed down into a narrow, smooth, high ridge, extending for some distance along the middle of the track; that this ridge became icy, and subsequently a fresh fall of snow covered it over, and presented a level surface, concealing the ice; that the place remained in this condition for about a week prior to the injury; and that plaintiff did not know that there was ice under the snow until he slipped and fell on the ridge of ice, and was injured.

We are of the opinion that, if the jury believed this evidence, they were warranted in finding that defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to keep the place in question a reasonably safe one for its employees to work in. The facts above recited tend much more strongly to prove negligence than did the facts in Fay v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O....