Severtson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation

• Decision Date: 30 November 1915
• Citation: 155 N.W. 11,32 N.D. 200
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

155 N.W. 11

32 N.D. 200

OLMFREDER SEVERTSON v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

November 30, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Walsh County, Kneeshaw, J. Action to recover damages for personal injuries by wrongful act. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Judgment of the District Court reversed and a new trial ordered.

M. A Hildreth and H. C. De Puy, for appellant.

Where the facts as to the acts which it is contended constitute contributory negligence are in dispute, the question is one for the jury, and it is error for the court to take such a case from the jury, or to direct a verdict. Rober v Northern P. R. Co. 25 N.D. 394, 142 N.W. 22; McNamara v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 136 N.Y. 650 32 N.E. 765; Wilson v. Southern P. R. Co. 62 Cal 164; Painton v. Northern C. R. Co. 83 N.Y. 8; 2 Thomp. Neg. §§ 1697, 1699, 1700; Patterson, Railway Acci. Law, p. 156, cases cited in foot notes; Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 18 N.D. 377, 121 N.W. 830; Johnson v. Great Northern R. Co. 12 N.D. 420, 97 N.W. 546; Braun v. Buffalo General Electric Co. 200 N.Y. 495, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1089, 140 Am. St. Rep. 645, 94 N.E. 206, 21 Ann. Cas. 370; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U.S. 43, 44, 37 L. ed. 642, 643, 13 S.Ct. 748, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 369.

The doctrine of the last clear chance is the settled law of this jurisdiction. Welsh v. Fargo & M. Street R. Co. 24 N.D. 463, 140 N.W. 683; and cases cited.

Contributory negligence is no defense, if the defendant railway company, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have discovered that deceased was in a position of peril in time to have averted the accident. Harrington v. Los Angeles R. Co. 140 Cal. 514, 63 L.R.A. 238, 98 Am. St. Rep. 85, 74 P. 15; Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co. 16 Utah 281, 40 L.R.A. 172, 67 Am. St. Rep. 621, 52 P. 92; Baltimore Consol. R. Co. v. Rifcowitz, 89 Md. 338, 43 A. 762; Hart v. Cedar Rapids & M. City R. Co. 109 Iowa 631, 80 N.W. 662; Miller v. Cedar Rapids Sash & Door Co. 153 Iowa 735, 134 N.W. 411; Ramsey v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. R. Co. 135 Iowa 329, 112 N.W. 798; Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co. 108 Mo.App. 501, 83 S.W. 995; St. Louis S.W. R. Co. v. Thompson, 89 Ark. 496, 117 S.W. 541; 2 Thomp. Neg. 1476; Costello v. Third Ave. R. Co. 161 N.Y. 317, 55 N.E. 897; Bittner v. Crosstown Street R. Co. 153 N.Y. 76, 60 Am. St. Rep. 588, 46 N.E. 1044, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 642; Wasmer v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 80 N.Y. 212, 36 Am. Rep. 608; Silliman v. Lewis, 49 N.Y. 379; Austin v. New Jersey S. B. Co. 43 N.Y. 75, 3 Am. Rep. 663; Haley v. Earle, 30 N.Y. 208; Weitzman v. Nassau Electric R. Co. 33 A.D. 585, 53 N.Y.S. 905; McKeon v. Steinway R. Co. 20 A.D. 601, 47 N.Y.S. 374; Bump v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 38 A.D. 60, 55 N.Y.S. 962. affirmed in 165 N.Y. 636, 59 N.E. 1119; Kenyon v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 5 Hun, 479; Radley v. London & N.W. R. Co. L. R. 1 App. Cas. 754, 46 L. J. Exch. N. S. 573, 35 L. T. N. S. 637, 25 Week. Rep. 147; Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 546, 12 L. J. Exch. N. S. 10, 6 Jur. 954, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 190; Isbele v. New York & N. H. R. Co. 27 Conn. 393, 71 Am. Dec. 78; Trow v. Vermont C. R. Co. 24 Vt. 487, 58 Am. Dec. 191; Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551, 35 L. ed. 270, 11 S.Ct. 653; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 36 L. ed. 485, 12 S.Ct. 679, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 659; 1 Shearm. & Redf. Neg. 5th ed. § 99; Patterson, Railway Acci. Law, § 58; Acton v. Fargo & M. Street R. Co. 20 N.D. 435, 129 N.W. 225.

It is the duty of courts, when a motion for directed verdict is made, to give a construction to the evidence most favorable to the opposite party. Warnken v. Langdon Mercantile Co. 8 N.D. 243, 77 N.W. 1000; Bohl v. Dell Rapids, 15 S.D. 619, 91 N.W. 315; Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin Min. Mill. & Mfg. Co. 1 S.D. 350, 47 N.W. 290; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Stebbins, 15 S.D. 280, 89 N.W. 674; John Miller Co. v. Klovstad, 14 N.D. 435, 105 N.W. 164; Ernster v. Christianson, 24 S.D. 103, 123 N.W. 711.

Photographs may be used in evidence, subject to explanation of conditions found after an accident, if taken at or shortly after the accident. Sherlock v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 24 N.D. 40, 138 N.W. 976.

It is not an absolute duty that a traveler should look and listen for an approaching train. Johnson v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. 163 N.C. 431, 79 S.E. 690, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 598, 4 N. C. C. A. 627.

It is the duty of a railway company to guard the rear end of its train while being moved over the street crossings in a city, and it is neglect of duty not to do so, and where such failure is the proximate cause of an accident or injury, then the question is for the jury. Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 125, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Coulter v. Great Northern R. Co. 5 N.D. 568, 67 N.W. 1046.

Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for respondent.

There was a total failure of proof to sustain the allegations of the complaint, and plaintiff was properly nonsuited. A railroad company should not be held liable for injury occurring at a defective point in a sidewalk some distance from the street crossing. Rev. Codes 1905, § 3324; Lynch v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 20 Ohio C. C. 248, 11 Ohio C. D. 243.

Neither is a railroad company liable for an injury resulting from its crossing being out of repair, unless it had notice of such fact, or the defect existed a sufficient length of time to justify the presumption of notice. Mann v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 86 Mo. 348; Nixon v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 141 Mo. 425, 42 S.W. 945; 38 Cyc. "Trial" 1547; 19 Decen. Dig. "Trial," § 159; Cooke v. Northern P. R. Co. 22 N.D. 266, 133 N.W. 303; Woodward v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 38, 111 N.W. 627.

Plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory negligence. A pedestrian approaching a railway track is held to a strict duty to ascertain if there are any trains coming, before going on the track. Kallmerten v. Cowen, 49 C. C. A. 346, 111 F. 297; Korrady v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 131 Ind. 261, 29 N.E. 1070; Young v. Old Colony R. Co. 156 Mass. 178, 30 N.E. 560; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Houston, 95 U.S. 702, 24 L. ed. 542, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 345; Watson v. Mound City Street R. Co. 133 Mo. 246, 34 S.W. 573; Hansen v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 83 Wis. 631, 53 N.W. 910; Wendell v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 91 N.Y. 428; 3 Elliott, Railroads, pp. 342, 343, also § 1168; Northern P. R. Co. v. Freeman, 174 U.S. 379, 43 L. ed. 1014, 19 S.Ct. 763; Wabash R. Co. v. Tippecanoe Loan & T. Co. 178 Ind. 113, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1167, 98 N.E. 64; Sherlock v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 24 N.D. 40, 138 N.W. 976.

Where negligence is claimed, it must be shown that it was the proximate cause of the injury. Voehl v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. N. J. , 59 A. 1034.

A question of fact of which there is no evidence cannot be submitted to the jury. Schneider v. Pennsylvania Co. 1 Sadler (Pa.) 290, 3 A. 26; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Anderson, 22 C. C. A. 415, 43 U.S. App. 673, 75 F. 811; Shearm. & Redf. Neg. § 57.

The doctrine of last clear chance has no application under the facts as they appear here. This is not a case of wilful injury or one where the company has failed to exercise reasonable care, after the discovery of a traveler on or about to cross its tracks. 3 Elliott, Railroads, § 1175.

Where the negligence is concurrent, and not wilful, or the result of lack of reasonable care, contributory negligence is a defense. Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551, 35 L. ed. 270, 11 S.Ct. 653; Grand Trunk R Co. v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 36 L. ed. 485, 12 S.Ct. 679, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 659; Sweeney v. New York Steam Co. 117 N.Y. 642, 22 N.E. 1131; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hellenthal, 31 C. C. A. 414, 60 U.S. App. 156, 88 F. 116; Dunworth v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. 62 C. C. A. 225, 127 F. 307; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 9 C. C. A. 314, 22 U. S. App. 102, 60 F. 993; Gilbert v. Erie R. Co. 38 C. C. A. 408, 97 F. 747; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Moseley, 6 C. C. A. 641, 12 U. S. App. 601, 57 F. 921; Denver & B. P. Rapid Transit Co. v. Dwyer, 20 Colo. 132, 36 P. 1106; Johnson v. Baltimore & P. R. Co. 6 Mackey, 232; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Didzoneit, 1 App. D. C. 482; Cullen v. Baltimore & P. R. Co. 8 App. D. C. 69; Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 3 Am. Rep. 390; Bouwmeester v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. 63 Mich. 557, 30 N.W. 337; Denman v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 26 Minn. 357, 4 N.W. 605; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Roberts, Miss. , 23 So. 393; Isabel v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 60 Mo. 475; Zimmerman v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 71 Mo. 477; Yarnall v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 75 Mo. 575; Union P. R. Co. v. Mertes, 35 Neb. 204, 52 N.W. 1099; Valin v. Milwaukee & N. R. Co. 82 Wis. 1, 33 Am. St. Rep. 17, 51 N.W. 1084; Little v. Superior Rapid Transit R. Co. 88 Wis. 402, 60 N.W. 705; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Hummell, 44 Pa. 375, 84 Am. Dec. 457; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Kassen, 49 Ohio St. 230, 16 L.R.A. 674, 31 N.E. 282, 6 Am. Neg. Cas. 179; Neet v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. 106 Iowa 248, 76 N.W. 677, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 26; Dyerson v. Union P. R. Co. 74 Kan. 528, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 132, 87 P. 680, 11 Ann. Cas. 207; Hope v. Great Northern R. Co. 19 N.D. 438, 122 N.W. 997; Gast v. Northern P. R. Co. 28 N.D. 118, 147 N.W. 793; Dunworth v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. 62 C. C. A. 225, 127 F. 307; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Ackerman, 76 C. C. A. 13, 144 F. 959, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 248; Boyd v. Southern R. Co. 115 Va. 11, 78 S.E. 548, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1017; Burnett v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 172 Mo.App. 51, 154 S.W. 1135; Graf v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 94 Mich. 579, 54 N.W. 389; Powers v. Iowa C. R. Co. 157 Iowa 347, 136 N.W. 1049; Morton v....