Stacey v. Winona & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 December 1889
• Citation: 42 Minn. 15,43 N.W. 905
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STACEY v WINONA & ST. P. R. CO.

42 Minn. 15

43 N.W. 905

STACEYvWINONA & ST. P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 9, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Applying the rule in regard to the removal of snow and ice from cattle-guards, laid down in Blais v. Railway Co., 34 Minn. 57,24 N. W. Rep. 558, to the undisputed facts in this case, it is held that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury, as requested, that the defendant was not negligent in this respect as to a guard over which plaintiffs' cattle passed onto its railway track.

2. The cattle were running at large in violation of the law. Held, that as the cattle-guard was not in an unlawful or forbidden condition, under the circumstances, and as the cattle were at large contrary to law, trespassers upon defendant's right of way, the defendant's servants, engaged in operating its trains, were not bound to anticipate such trespassing by looking ahead, or by managing a train with reference to such a contingency.

Appeal from district court, Goodhue county; MCCLUER, Judge.

Action by Edgar Stacey against the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company for injuries to stock. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals.

Wilson & Bowers, for appellant.

J. C. English and J. C. McClure, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

In Blais v. Railway Co., 34 Minn. 57,24 N. W. Rep. 558, this court announcedthat, save under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, reasonable care and diligence did not require a railway company to remove the natural accumulations of snow and ice from its cattle-guards; and such rule must be accepted as the settled law of the state upon the subject. That case was carefully considered, as is manifest from the opinion, in which the reasons for the conclusion are clearly and forcibly stated, and we remain satisfied that it was decided correctly. No special circumstances were shown to exist in the case at bar which should except it from an application of the established law. It was undisputed that the winter had been the most severe for eight years. Snow had fallen to a great depth; in many places entirely covering the fences along defendant's right of way. Cattle could make their way almost anywhere, the fences proving of little or no use. Defendant's railway had been blockaded several times during the season, and only a few days prior to the accident had been closed for nearly one week on account of the snow. A large number of men, with engines and snow-plow, were engaged constantly in removing the drifting snow from the rails; and so much had been thrown out that it was piled up on either side of the track until there was barely room for the trains to pass by. There were at least ten cattle-guards upon the repair section in question, six and three-fourths of a mile in length. It is true that plaintiff's farm bordered on the corporate limits of a village; but we are not informed of its size, and there is nothing in the case tending to indicate that the road from which the animals went upon defendant's track was anything more than an ordinary country highway. With these circumstances before it, the trial court erred in directing the jury to pass upon the question of defendant's negligence in regard to keeping the ground free and clear of snow and ice, and whether or not it had used reasonable precautions in the matter. Under the rule established by the Blais Case, defendant was not negligent in this respect. The court should have so charged the jury, as requested by the defendant; for it is apparent...