Rifley v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1898 |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 704,72 Minn. 469 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | RIFLEY v MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Plaintiff, a switchman, while employed by defendant in its yards in Minneapolis, slipped on a narrow ridge of ice between the rails of the track, fell, and was struck by a moving car, and was injured. The ridge of ice was about two inches higher than the rails, was concealed by a covering of fresh snow, and had been in this condition about a week before the injury. In an action to recover damages for the injury, held, it is a question for the jury whether or not defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to keep its yard in a reasonably safe condition.
2. Whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in walking along ahead of a slowly-moving car to adjust the coupling on the same, so as to couple it to another car, held a question for the jury.
3. Evidence that it was, and long had been, customary for defendant's brakemen and switchmen thus to walk ahead of the moving car when adjusting the coupling, held competent.
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; James C. Tarbox, Judge.
Action by Harry Rifley against the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff, new trial denied, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Albert E. Clarke, and Wilbur F. Booth, for appellant.
F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.
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 onto 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 onto 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Davis
... ... negligence. (4 Thompson on Negligence, sec. 4335; Sankey ... v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 118 Iowa 39, 91 N.W. 820; ... Rifley v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 72 Minn ... 469, 75 N.W. 704; Gibson v. Iowa Central Ry. Co., ... 115 Minn. 147, 131 N.W. 1057; Cregg v. Chicago ... ...
- Brannock v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
-
Brannock v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
... ... Rifley v. Railroad, 72 Minn. 469, 75 N. W. 704. As to whether the further act of getting on the brake beam was careless depends on circumstances of which ... ...
-
Reams v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co.
... ... Reversed and remanded ... [180 Minn. 535] ... 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 ... In Rifley v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 72 Minn. 469, 75 N. W. 704, where a ridge of ice between the rails in the yard had remained in that condition for ... ...