St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1912 |
| Citation | 116 Minn. 397,133 N.W. 849 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; William Louis Kelly, Judge.
Action by the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company against the Great Northern Railway Company. Verdict directed for defendant. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Under the circumstances as disclosed by the evidence and the stipulated facts in this case, a question was made for the jury as to whether a fire started by the defendant's employés escaped to and destroyed a building through the negligence of such employés. J. D. Armstrong, for appellant.
How, Butler & Mitchell, for respondent.
The defendant, in April, 1905, while engaged in surveying a line of railway in the state of North Dakota, had established a camp for one of its surveying parties on premises belonging to Haslam & Connolly. The camp was located not far from a shingle-roof barn. While the camp was so located, one of the tents caught fire. The burning pieces thereof were carried by the wind to the barn, and the barn and contents were destroyed, causing a loss of upwards of $958.50. Upon the property the plaintiff had issued a fire insurance policy, and after the fire paid Haslam & Connolly the sum of $958.50, the total loss and damage covered by the policy. The plaintiff, claiming that it was subrogated to the rights of Haslam & Connolly under the provisions of the policy by such payment, and claiming that the fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant's employés, brought this action to recover the damage caused thereby to the extent of the sum paid by it to Haslam & Connolly. Upon the trial it appeared by stipulation and evidence that the tent in which the fire originated was used as a sleeping tent, that it contained an air-tight stove and straw upon the ground for beds, and that a member of the surveying party built a fire in the stove, and about ten minutes thereafter, while no one was in the tent, the tent and contents were burning. No money was paid by the defendant to the owners of the land for the use of the premises for camping purposes, and the license and permission to occupy the land and erect the tents thereon was wholly without consideration. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Thereafter, upon plaintiff's motion, a new trial was granted, on the ground that under the evidence the defendant's negligence was a question for the jury. The defendant appealed from the order granting a new trial. In support of the order plaintiff advances two propositions:
[2] 1. The license or permission to occupy the premises, given the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keithley v. Hettinger
...by a fire which occurs, without negligence on his part, while he is occupying the premises as such licensee. St. P. F. & M. Ins. Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 116 Minn. 397, 133 N. W. 849. In the case cited a party of surveyors, employed by a railroad company, camped near a barn with the consent of......