Robinson v. Great N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1913
• Citation: 144 N.W. 220,123 Minn. 495
• Parties: ROBINSON et al. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

123 Minn. 495

144 N.W. 220

ROBINSON et al.

v.GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 5, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; William E. Hale, Judge.

Action by Wm. Robinson and others against the Great Northern Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiffs. From denial of alternative motion for judgment or new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence justifies the finding of the jury that the defendant was negligent in the care of live stock unloaded in the course of transportation.

The requirement that the shipper make his claim within 15 days and that he sue within 3 months was waived by the defendant.

The shipment was intrastate under a shipping contract limiting the value of the stock. The court made no reference to the limitation, its attention was not called to it, and recovery of full damages was permitted. It is held that, the attention of the court not having been called to the error or omission, there is no available error.

The verdict was not excessive. Cobb, Wheelwright & Dille, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Simon Meyers, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

DIBELL, C.

This action was brought to recover damages to a car load of horses shipped over defendant's road from Minneapolis to Park Rapids. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial.

[1] 1. The train containing the car left Minneapolis on November 9, 1911, at 11 p. m. A man was sent by the plaintiffs with the shipment. At Sauk Center, where the car was transferred to the Park Rapids train, this man got on the wrong train and went south, as the horses went north. Upon arriving at Sebeka, some 22 miles from Park Rapids, the 24 hours fixed by R. L. 1905, § 5153, for caring for stock, being about to expire, the defendant set out and unloaded the car, and the train went on. The plaintiffs conceded at the trial that unloading at Sebeka was proper, and they cannot now change their position, though they suggest doing so. The question is whether the defendant was negligent in caring for the horses when unloaded. The horses were put into the stock pens with substantially no shelter. There is evidence that a blizzard was on. The conductor had telephoned ahead two or three hours before, but could not get stable room. The car of stock was worth several thousand dollars. It was easily enough a question for the jury whether the defendant was negligent in failing to provide shelter for the night and the next morning. In a place like Sebeka a practical man could have provided sufficient shelter, at least of a temporary character, in a few hours. The case of Jones v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 91 Minn. 229, 97 N. W. 893,103 Am. St. Rep. 507, cited by respondent, is not at all controlling on this phase of the case.

We attach no importance to the fact that the man sent with the stock lost the train at Sauk Center. The conductor, when he took the car, knew there was no one with the stock, and the company undertook to unload and care for it, and charged the plaintiffs for doing so.

[2] 2. The shipping contract provided that notice of loss should be given within 15 days and that suit must be brought within 3 months.

On November 15, 1911, the plaintiffs wrote the defendant more in the way of complaint than of claim. Correspondence continued to March 28, 1912, when the plaintiffs wrote to the...