Rogers v. Truesdale
| Decision Date | 20 April 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8745 |
| Citation | 58 N.W. 688,57 Minn. 126 |
| Parties | Nettie Rogers v. William H. Truesdale |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued by appellant, submitted on brief by respondent April 13 1894.
Appeal by defendant, William H. Truesdale, Receiver of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Waseca County, Thomas S. Buckham, J made August 19, 1893, overruling his demurrer to the complaint.
The plaintiff, Nettie Rogers, stated in her complaint that on June 28, 1888, the District Court of Hennepin County appointed defendant receiver of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company and authorized him to operate the road, that he accepted the trust and employed William B. L. Rogers as brakeman on a freight train running between Minneapolis and Albert Lea. That it was defendant's duty to have the cars carefully loaded and to make and enforce reasonable rules relative to loading and inspection of freight cars so that they could be transported with reasonable safety to the servants; that defendant negligently omitted to make or enforce such rules. The complaint further stated that on March 9, 1893, at Montgomery Station defendant negligently permitted a flat car to be so negligently loaded with cordwood that two green slippery elm ties were placed at one end of the car with the slippery side up and uncovered, while the cordwood was piled higher than the ties but not upon them, so that the brakeman in passing along the tops of the cars composing the train while it was in motion was obliged to step down from the wood upon the ties; that the ties were so hewn that the edges remained in their natural state except that the bark was loose and partly off; that the car thus loaded was negligently placed in the train and taken south to Waseca; that while switching at that place Rogers was required to pass over this car of wood while it was in motion; that in doing so he stepped upon the elm ties then wet with rain and slipped and fell between the cars and was run over and killed; and that plaintiff his widow was on June 10, 1893, appointed administratrix of his estate. She brought this action as such administratrix to recover $ 5,000 damages for the benefit of herself and his next of kin, pursuant to 1878 G. S. ch. 77, § 2. Defendant demurred to the complaint and specified as ground of objection that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court overruled the demurrer and defendant appeals.
Order appealed from should be affirmed.
A. E Clarke and W. F. Booth, for appellant.
S. L....
To continue reading
Request your trial