State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 28 June 1894 |
| Docket Number | 8728,8780 |
| Citation | 59 N.W. 545,58 Minn. 35 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota v. Dow S. Smith |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued June 4, 1894
Appeal by defendant, Dow S. Smith, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Stephen Mahoney, J entered January 19, 1894, adjudging him guilty of an offense under Laws 1893, ch. 63, and fining him $ 75.
There was also an appeal by defendant, Frank S. Hoskins, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of St. Paul convicting him of a like offense.
On January 8, 1894, Dow S. Smith was superintendent and general manager of the Minneapolis Street Railway and on that day sent out the motoneer with electric car No. 505 without having provided it with an enclosure to protect him from exposure to the inclemencies of the weather, contrary to the provisions of Laws 1893, ch. 63. Smith was, on complaint of Charles E. Hultmark, arrested and plead not guilty, waived a jury, stipulated as to the facts and contended that the statute was unconstitutional. But he was found guilty and fined $ 75. He appeals to this court.
Judgments affirmed.
Koon Whelan & Bennett, for appellant Smith.
Munn Boyeson & Thygeson, for appellant Hoskins.
H. W. Childs, Attorney General, Pierce Butler, Frank M. Nye and Albert H. Hall, for the state.
Collins, J. Buck, J., absent, took no part. Canty, J., having tried the case below, when district judge, did not sit.
In these two cases the validity of Laws 1893, ch. 63, entitled "An act to compel street railway companies to protect certain of their employees from the inclemency of the weather," is called in question.
That act requires of street-railway companies operating electric, cable, or steam cars, requiring the constant service of persons on any part of the cars except the rear platform, to provide each car with an inclosure, constructed of wood, iron, and glass, or similar suitable material, sufficient to protect such employes from exposure to the inclemency of the weather, but not so as to obstruct the vision of the person operating the car, at all times between November 1st and April 1st in each year. What are called "trailing cars" are excluded from this requirement, so that it applies only to cars on which the motive power is operated or controlled.
The law was passed with reference to the fact that the man operating or controlling the motive power of such cars was required to stand where his person was almost wholly exposed to cold, storm, and wind, having but little protection except such as the clothing affords.
The act is assailed as unconstitutional, on the grounds --
First. That it is not an exercise of the police power of the state.
Second. It is class legislation.
Third. It impairs the obligation of a contract.
Fourth. It interferes with the liberty of contract between street-railway companies and their employes.
Fifth. It imposes an excessive fine.
It is stipulated as a fact, what everybody knows, that electric cars are run at a rate of speed of from four to fifteen miles an hour, and at an average rate of between eight and nine miles an hour.
Any one acquainted with the extreme cold of much of the weather in this climate between the 1st of November and the 1st of April, and who knows, as everybody does, that the motorman on an electric car is obliged to stand in one place, always on the alert, his whole attention given to the means of controlling the motive power and the brake, and to looking out ahead, and unable, with due regard to his duties, to give attention to protecting himself from the cold, must appreciate that, when going at the rate of eight or nine miles an hour, perhaps against a head wind, and with the mercury below zero, the position of the motorman is one not merely of discomfort, but of actual danger to health, and sometimes to life, and the tendency of which is to disable him to some extent...
To continue reading
Request your trial