Shea v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1892 |
| Citation | 50 Minn. 395 |
| Parties | JOHN C. SHEA <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, John C. Shea, a liveryman, was on January 26, 1891, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, driving his team and hack east along Eighth Street in St. Paul. In crossing Jackson Street his carriage was struck by the electric street railway cars of defendant, going south, and he was injured, and his hack overturned and broken. He brought this action, claiming the collision was caused by the negligence of defendant. It answered, denying negligence on the part of its servants and alleging contributory negligence on his part in not keeping out of the way. Plaintiff had a verdict for $800. Defendant moved for a new trial, but was denied.
Henry J. Horn, for appellant.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Erwin & Wellington and D. F. Peebles, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was driving a hack along Eighth street, in the city of St. Paul, going east. As he approached the intersection of Eighth and Jackson streets, (which cross at right angles,) an electric street car of defendant was approaching the same point from the north, running down Jackson street. As plaintiff was crossing the railway track on the intersection of the two streets, the car collided with the hack, causing the injuries complained of. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent in running the car at an unusual and dangerous rate of speed, and in not giving timely signals of its approach to the street crossing. The defendant denied these allegations of negligence on its part, and alleged that the injuries were caused by plaintiff's own negligence, especially in driving upon the track without looking for approaching cars. Most of defendant's assignments of error, as well as of his argument, is to the point that the verdict was not justified by the evidence. An examination of the record, however, satisfies us that upon the questions both of defendant's negligence and of plaintiff's contributory negligence the evidence made a case for the jury. There was evidence reasonably tending to prove that the car was being run at an unusually rapid rate of speed (from fifteen to twenty miles an hour according to several witnesses;) that the speed was unchecked until after the collision occurred; that it was running on quite a heavy down grade, where it is more difficult to check the speed; that no signal of its approach was given until it was within forty to sixty feet of the crossing; that this was in a populous part of the city, and the streets in question, which are rather narrow, much used thoroughfares of travel; and that buildings on the corners necessarily obstruct the view from one street up and down the other, until a person is within a comparatively short distance of the crossing.
It is hardly necessary to say that upon such a state of facts, if found to be true, the jury would be justified in finding that the defendant was negligent.
Defendant's main contention, however, is that the evidence conclusively shows that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. There was evidence tending to show that he was driving down Eighth street at a slow trot, say five miles an hour; that he heard no signals of the approach of cars; that on reaching the crossing he looked south, down Jackson street, and saw no cars; that he then turned his head to look the other way, (by this time his horses' heads were just above over the nearest rail of the car track,) and saw a car some sixty feet distant, coming down; that he immediately attempted to stop his horses, but finding that he was unable to do so, owing to their restiveness, he struck them with the whip, and attempted to urge them rapidly across the track, but before he...
To continue reading
Request your trial