Stacklie v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 15 June 1898 |
| Docket Number | 11,062 - (111) |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 734,73 Minn. 37 |
| Parties | ERICK STACKLIE v. ST. PAUL & DULUTH RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $6,261 because of injuries suffered and expenses incurred by defendant. From a judgment in favor of defendant, entered in pursuance of the order of Ensign, J., notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, he appealed. Affirmed.
Railway -- Injury to Freight Handler at Warehouse -- Crossing Track without Looking -- Evidence of Contributory Negligence.
Held that the evidence establishes the contributory negligence of the plaintiff in this case, as a matter of law.
John Jenswold, Jr., for appellant.
Hadley & Armstrong, for respondent.
This is a personal injury case. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,140. The trial court, on defendant's motion, ordered judgment in its favor, notwithstanding the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered upon the order. The sole question on this appeal is whether the undisputed evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
As a part of the defendant's terminals at Duluth, it owned and operated two warehouses, between which, running north and south, were three parallel railway tracks, resting on piling. The easterly track was known as "No. 1," the middle one as "Central," and the westerly as "No. 2." Runways or walks, by laying two 12-inch planks side by side, had been laid outside the rails and between the tracks. When the tracks were filled with cars, the space between them would be 4 feet and 10 inches. During the season of 1896, Messrs. Donahue & Gallagher were the contractors for the defendant, who handled for it all of the freight at the warehouses, and the plaintiff was employed by them, and had been employed in the same place for four whole seasons prior to the year 1896, and knew the condition of the tracks, the method of doing business, and the movement of cars at the locus in quo. The only method of placing loaded cars at the warehouse, and taking them away, was by the men pushing them to and fro, or having them pushed by a switch engine if one happened to be there.
On August 18, 1896, the plaintiff was engaged in pushing cars on track No. 1, and stood with his shoulder against the corner of an empty car which had been stopped by gravel on the track when a bump came that was sharper and stronger than that usually given by the men. The evidence justifies the conclusion that the plaintiff knew that an engine had come into the yard, and was pushing the cars. He knew that there were no cars on the center track when he took his place to assist in pushing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial