Scott v. Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota

• Decision Date: 03 July 1903
• Docket Number: 13,467 - (161)
• Citation: 95 N.W. 892,90 Minn. 135
• Parties: MICHAEL E. SCOTT v. EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 892

90 Minn. 135

MICHAEL E. SCOTT v. EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF MINNESOTA

Nos. 13,467 - (161)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 3, 1903

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $30,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before O. B. Lewis J., who directed a verdict in favor of defendant upon the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Inspection of Railway Cars.

All rules which impose the duty of car inspection upon conductors and brakemen must be reasonable, and must be reasonably construed. Whether they are reasonable is not for a jury ordinarily, but is to be determined by the court as a question of law.

Inspection of Railway Cars -- Steps.

A rule which obliges brakemen to examine and know for themselves that steps of the cars in their trains are in proper condition, and which requires conductors to see that brakemen perform the duty of necessary inspection of such steps -- ample time being given to inspect and to see that there is such inspection -- is a reasonable rule, as a matter of law.

Violation of Company's Rules.

If an employee of a railway company, of ordinary intelligence, is injured by reason of his disregard or disobedience of a reasonable rule issued by the company, of which he has been properly notified, ample time and opportunity being given to observe and obey, he cannot recover, as against the company, for an injury received, when his violation of the rule is the proximate cause thereof. He will, as a matter of law, be deemed guilty of contributory negligence.

Public Policy.

A rule of the character above considered is not contrary to public policy, nor can it be held to be obnoxious to the principle of law which requires the master, in the exercise of reasonable care, to furnish and maintain safe and proper appliances and instrumentalities for the use of his servants in the work assigned to them.

Proximate Cause.

Held, in the case at bar, that plaintiff, a freight conductor, cannot recover in this action for injuries received while in defendant's employ; his violation and disregard of a reasonable rule being the proximate cause of the injury.

Samuel A. Anderson and P. D. Godfrey, for appellant.

W. E. Dodge, J. A. Murphy, and Heber McHugh, for respondent.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

Plaintiff, at the time he received his injuries -- May 22, 1902 -- was in the employ of defendant company as a freight conductor. He had held this position for about one year, and for about three years prior thereto had worked for defendant as a brakeman. At the time of the accident he had charge of a work train at Hughson station, some twenty-five miles west of the West Superior terminal. With his crew he made his headquarters at the terminal; running out to Hughson with the locomotive and a caboose car in the morning, and returning to the yard at night. On May 20 he discovered that the steps upon the car then in use were in bad order, and notified his superior officer. When reporting for duty on the morning of the twenty-first, he was notified by the yardmaster to take another specified car, which he did; having the right to assume that it had been inspected while at the terminal. The locomotive and car then proceeded to Hughson, where the latter was sidetracked, and at the end of the day plaintiff and his crew returned with it to Superior. The next morning they again went to Hughson, and, on reaching there, plaintiff left the car, and proceeded to the depot for orders. Meantime the locomotive, with the car attached, went westerly a short distance, for the work train. As it returned, plaintiff signaled the engineer, the train slowed down, and then, in attempting to board the car while it was running about five or six miles an hour, he lost his footing, and was thrown under the wheels.

The immediate cause of the accident is admitted to have been a step in bad order, and there was an abundance of testimony to justify a finding that the defect existed when plaintiff was directed to take the car, on the morning of the twenty-first. Its bad condition had been overlooked by the general inspector. Because of this failure to inspect, defendant's negligence must be conceded. But it was claimed that, according to his own admissions, plaintiff was guilty of gross contributory negligence which would prevent a recovery by him in this action. At the conclusion of the trial in the court below, a verdict was ordered and returned for defendant, evidently upon this ground. The appeal is from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

The negligence attributed to plaintiff, and relied upon, is an admitted disregard of rules well known to him, and promulgated by defendant company for the government of its employees. As a conductor, plaintiff had full charge and absolute control of his train, and under the rules the brakemen were subject to his direction and orders. On the morning the car was assigned to him, and again on the morning he was injured, he reported for duty after daylight, and, in accordance with the rules, thirty minutes before train time, presumably that he might make proper preparations. He personally tried the brakes upon the car on both mornings before starting, and found them to be in good order, according to his testimony. He was familiar with all of the rules, including a special rule or notice furnished to and read by him, and returned with his written acknowledgment, in January, 1901. He admitted at the trial that he knew and fully understood every one of them. He made no inspection of the car on either morning, except as we have stated; and he did not ascertain in any manner whether the two brakemen under his immediate control had examined the steps upon the car, or had performed any other act of inspection. It was daylight when he was injured, and he testified that he did not look to see where he was stepping when he attempted to jump on the car, because he was watching his hands. The only reason assigned by him at the trial for failing to obey the rules, which required him to make an examination of his car, and also to ascertain whether his brakemen had inspected it, was that he did not consider it necessary so to do.

By defendant's rule 152, conductors were made responsible for the safety, prompt movement, and proper care of their trains, and for the conduct of the men employed thereon. By rule 153, they were required to be familiar with the duties of all employees upon the trains, including brakemen, to enforce the rules applicable to them, and to report any insubordination, neglect of duty, or misconduct. By rule 162, they were required to know that their cars had been inspected by trainmen. Any omission on the part of the inspectors was to be regarded as a danger to the train, to be reported at once to the superintendent. By rule 164, they were required to

"Examine the brakes, couplings, safety chains, signal cords, etc., so as to know, as far as practicable, that everything is in order before starting,"

and were directed to require brakemen to aid in examining trains. By rule 202, the latter, while on trains, were under the direction of their conductor. By rule 203, brakemen were required to

"Examine and know for themselves that the brake shafts and attachments, ladders, running boards, steps, handholds, and other parts and mechanical appliances, which they are to use, are in proper condition, and if not, report them to the proper parties that they may be put in order before using."

On January 29, 1901, the special rule or notice before mentioned was printed and forwarded to every operative upon the road, reading as follows, in so far as is important here:

"Every employee of this company is hereby warned that before exposing himself, or his fellow employees, to danger, it will be his duty to examine the condition of all machinery, tools, cars, engines, trucks, tracks or appliances that he is required to use in the performance of his duties, satisfying himself so far as he reasonably can, that they are in safe working order. * * * It is the right and duty of every employee to take sufficient time to make such examinations, and to refuse to obey any order which exposes himself or his employees to danger. N.B. This notice is additional to the book of rules, bulletins and other instructions, and does not rescind, cancel or modify the same."

Attention is now called to a few of the salient features of this case (a) That when the accident happened the plaintiff had worked upon defendant's trains three years as a brakeman, and one year as a conductor, under the rules. (b) That in compliance with a rule he had reported for work on the morning of the twenty-first, when he first received this car, and again on the morning of the twenty-second, a half hour before train time, presumably that he might have ample time in which to prepare for his trips; that he had but twenty-five miles to run to Hughson; and that no haste was required of him in the performance of any of his duties. (c) That the special rule or notice expressly provided that it was his right and duty to take sufficient time to make all necessary examinations and inspections of each car in his train. (d) That he had but one car to inspect until he reached Hughson, and at this point a very small work train was placed in his charge. (e) That all work was done and that the accident happened in broad daylight, after plaintiff had used the car more than twenty-four hours. (f) That the defect in question was easily seen -- a casual glance would have discovered it -- and that car steps are designed for the use of persons whose business it is to get on and off the train, and that the good order of each step is...