Scheiber v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1895 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9429 - (188).,s. 9429 - (188). |
| Citation | 61 Minn. 499 |
| Parties | FREDERICK W. SCHEIBER v. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
J. L. Macdonald, for appellant.
Thomas Wilson and S. L. Perrin, for respondent.
This is a personal injury case, wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries sustained by him by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant in the management of its railway train upon which he was a passenger. The trial court, at the close of the evidence, instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and it was so returned. To this instruction the plaintiff excepted, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial he prosecutes this appeal.
Under the evidence, the question of the defendant's negligence in the premises was one of fact for the jury, and the instruction of the trial court can be justified only upon the ground that, under the undisputed evidence, the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence was one of law for the court. Where the facts as to the negligence of a party are undisputed or conclusively proved, and there is no reasonable basis for drawing different conclusions from them, the question is one of law for the court. It is not sufficient that the facts are admitted, for the decisive test is whether or not fair-minded men could honestly and reasonably differ as to the inferences to be drawn from the admitted facts. Abbett v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 482, 16 N. W. 266.
This rule must be applied in practice with caution, lest the courts usurp the functions of the jury, and unwittingly deprive a party of his constitutional right to a trial by jury; and, if there is a fair doubt as to the inferences to be drawn from an admitted state of facts, the question must be submitted to the jury; but, in the absence of such fair doubt, it is equally the duty of the court to decide the question as one of law, and instruct the jury accordingly.
We have examined the evidence in this case in the light of this rule and caution, and have reached the conclusion that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the undisputed facts is that the plaintiff was himself guilty of contributory negligence, and that the jury were properly directed to return a verdict for the defendant.
The plaintiff's own statement as to how he was injured is substantially as follows: On June 7, 1893, he was a passenger on the defendant's railway train, which was operated by steam, from the Union Depot in St. Paul to its East Seventh street station in such city. He had been accustomed to ride on this train daily for 5 days in each week for 18 months next before he was injured. During this time the train always made a very brief stop at the last-named station, which was near his home, and where he was accustomed to alight from the train. On the day named, as the train...
To continue reading
Request your trial