Schendel v. Chicago Great Western Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23,898,24,221 |
| Parties | A. D. SCHENDEL v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed April 17, 1924
Safety Appliance Act -- proximate cause of injury -- where act is violated proof of negligence unnecessary.
An interstate train, in the act of taking a siding to meet a train, separated because a drawbar pulled out. A chain coupling was made to get the train off the main line. The decedent, a brakeman, with the conductor, undertook to unhook the chain to uncouple the train from the defective car. The head brakeman uncoupled the engine and the train was caused to move backward. He then caused the brakes to be applied on the cars ahead of the defective car. When the train moved backward decedent locked his arms about the axles of the defective car and swung his body over the chain, and, when the front part of the train stopped, the chain became taut and squeezed decedent's body against the car above him causing injuries from which he died 15 days later. Verdict for $5,000 for pain and suffering and $20,000 for loss from death. Held:
(1) That there was no break in the chain of events between the pulling out of the drawbar and the injury and that the facts bring the case within the provisions of the Safety Appliance Act.
(2) a. The defective drawbar was a proximate cause of the injury.
b. In a case based upon Federal Safety Applicance Act it is not necessary to prove negligence. A disregard of the statute is a wrongful act and, where it results in damage to one of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, the right to recover the damages from the party in default, is implied.
(3) a. Contributory negligence not a defense.
(b). Whether a violation of rules, which were in evidence, was the proximate cause of decedent's injury, was sufficiently covered by a general charge, and defendant was not entitled to a specific charge in reference thereto.
c. Before a violation of rules could avail defendant it would have to constitute the sole proximate cause of the injury.
(4) Various assignments of error as to the charge to the jury without merit.
(5) Damages not excessive.
In May 20, 1924, the following opinion was filed:
Petition on Rehearing
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court of Yellow Medicine county, state of Minnesota, entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial