Schendel v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Decision Date | 11 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,825 |
| Citation | 206 N.W. 436,165 Minn. 223 |
| Parties | A. D. SCHENDEL v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action transferred to the district court for Yellow Medicine county to recover for the wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate. The case was tried before Baker, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Reversed.
Use of interstate freight car with defective uncoupling safety appliance in violation of Federal act negligence.
1. The use, by a railway company, engaged in interstate commerce, of a freight car with a defective uncoupling safety appliance thereon, in violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act establishes negligence on the part of the company as a matter of law.
Causal relation between violation of statute and injury to be pleaded and proved.
2. In an action to recover for a death, under a violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff both to plead and prove causal relation between the violation of the statute and the injury.
Presumption that deceased exercised due care for his safety.
3. In an action to recover for a death, where there are no eye witnesses, the presumption is that the decedent was in the exercise of due care for his own safety.
When proof must preponderate in favor of defendant's liability.
4. Where the evidence presents two or more theories as to the manner in which an accident occurred, on one of which the defendant is liable, but on the other it is not, the proof must fairly preponderate in favor of the liability, or the action fails.
When circumstantial evidence must show causal connection between violation of statute and injury.
5. Where the evidence is wholly circumstantial, to entitle plaintiff to recover, the evidence must be something more than consistent with the plaintiff's theory of the case. It must tend to show a causal connection between the violation of the statute and the injury.
Inference drawn from unreliable premises is unreliable.
6. No inference of fact or of law is reliable, drawn from premises which are unreliable.
What evidence does not establish required causal connection.
7. The fact that decedent was compelled, by reason of the defective appliance, to do something he would not have otherwise done and, while so doing, was injured by something apart from the use of the appliance, does not, of itself, establish causal connection between the violation of the statute and the injury.
When interstate company is liable to switchman taking defective car to repair track.
8. The liability of an interstate railway company, under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, to a switchman injured through a violation of the act, exists, although the employe, when injured, was engaged in taking the defective car to the repair track for repairs.
1. See Master and Servant, 39 C.J. p. 820, § 1032; p. 1140 § 1331.
2. See Master and Servant, 39 C.J. p. 934, § 1169; p. 958, § 1185.
3. See Death, 17 C.J. p. 1304, § 167; Evidence, 22 C.J. p. 94, § 35.
4. See Evidence, 23 C.J. pp. 11, 12, § 1744.
5. See Master and Servant, 39 C.J. pp. 1050, 1051, § 1266.
6. See Evidence, 23 C.J. p. 56, § 1797 (Anno).
7. Master and Servant, 39 C.J. p. 1051, § 1266.
8. Master and Servant, 39 C.J. p. 387, § 503.
1. See notes in 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 473; 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 49; 18 R.C.L. p. 614; R.C.L. Supp. pp. 831, 832; 4 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1199.
2. See notes in 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 345; L.R.A. 1915E, 516. 20 R.C.L. p. 43; 4 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1327; 5 R.C.L. Supp. p. 1075.
F. W. Root, C. O. Newcomb, A. C. Erdall, Daly & Barnard and Bert. O. Loe, for appellant.
Davis & Michel and Paul D. Stratton, for respondent.
This is an action by a special administrative to recover damages for the wrongful death of Charles Hilt, plaintiff's intestate, for the benefit of his surviving widow and three minor children. The cause of action is based upon a violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. Both the decedent and the defendant were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident complained of. There was a verdict in favor of plaintiff of $24,000. The appeal is from an order denying defendant's alternative motion for judgment or for a new trial.
Decedent was 34 years of age. He was in the employ of the defendant as a switchman at its yards in Janesville, Wisconsin, in February, 1923.He was a member of a switching crew composed of a foreman, two switchmen, an engineer and a fireman. The tracks in that yard extend in an easterly and westerly direction. Just before the accident, the switch engine was on the main track, facing to the east and coupled onto the west end of a string of 12 freight cars, which was about to be switched. To the west of the point where the engine and string of cars were, was a passing track, and to the north of the passing track was the Mineral Point main track, both parallel with the main track. Branching from the Mineral Point track was track number 5, and a little farther west, branching from the same track, was the repair track.
The second, third and fourth cars from the east end of the string were "bad order cars", of which the most westerly one was a C.B. & Q. gondola car. Immediately to the west of the gondola car, and coupled to it, was a Great Northern box car which was in good order. It was the purpose of the crew, in switching the string of cars, to place the most easterly one on the transfer track, to place the three "bad order cars" on the repair track where they could be handled while being repaired, and to place the balance of the string on track number 5. To accomplish this purpose, the engine pulled a considerable distance west on the main track, taking the entire string with it, then stopped and switched over onto the Mineral Point track, then pushed the string east on that track past both the repair track and track number 5, and placed the most easterly car on the string on the transfer track, then pushed the string farther east on the Mineral Point track to a point at or near where the accident occurred, for the purpose of cutting off the "bad order cars" and leaving them on that track while the engine placed the balance of the string on track number 5. The engine was then to return, couple onto the three "bad order cars" and place them on the repair track.
While the engine was pushing the string east on the Mineral Point track, switchman Frank E. Swan was riding on top about midway between the engine and the gondola car. He was the only person, seeing the movement of the train at the time of the accident, who testified as a witness at the trial. He was called by the plaintiff and testified, in effect, that he was riding on the fourth or fifth car from the engine; that it was about 2 o'clock in the morning; that they were about to stop and cut off the three "bad order cars" and leave them on the Mineral Point track while the engine took the remainder of the string to track number 5; that, as the string came to a stop, decedent approached the ends of the gondola and Great Northern cars, from the north, with his lantern; that decedent was the field switchman and, as such, it was his duty to make the uncoupling; that, as the lantern reached the end of the cars, he saw it rise up about 4 or 5 feet, as though the man carrying it was climbing up into the stirrup when the light disappeared from his sight; that the cars were standing still at the time the light passed from his view; that very shortly thereafter, there was a stop signal; that he then went down to the gondola car and that decedent's body lay midway between the rails, under the middle of the gondola car, with his head to the south and his legs across the north rail; that he was dead and there was blood on the wheels of the gondola car and also upon the wheels of the Great Northern car and that they immediately notified the coroner; that the uncoupling had not been effected.
The gondola car was an open flat car, with sides about one-half the height of a box car, of all steel construction, such as soft coal is usually hauled in. There was a full length ladder and a stirrup on the north side of the car, at the westerly end, where the uncoupling lever was. This car was in bad order, in that a piece of iron, called an "S", was absent from the coupling device at its westerly end, so that the car could not be uncoupled from the Great Northern car by use of the uncoupling lever thereon.
The uncoupling lever on the Great Northern car was on the south side, at the corner next to the gondola car. It was in good condition so that the uncoupling of the two cars could be effected from the south side by use of that lever. There was a full length ladder and a stirrup on the south front corner where the lever was located. One purpose of the ladders and stirrups near the lever was to enable brakemen and switchmen to pass from one side of the train to the other while the cars are in motion.
It is alleged in the complaint, in effect, that, at the time of and previous to the accident, the defendant, negligently and contrary to the laws of the United States, used the car with the coupling in a defective and inoperative condition; that the car could not, because of such defective condition, be uncoupled from another to which it was coupled by use of the lever and without the necessity of the operator going between the ends of such cars; that, at the time of the accident, it became and was the duty of the decedent to uncouple the gondola car from the one next west of it to which it was coupled, and, that because of the defective condition of such apparatus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial