Strutzel v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1891
• Citation: 50 N.W. 690,47 Minn. 543
• Parties: STRUTZEL v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

47 Minn. 543

50 N.W. 690

STRUTZELvST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 22, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The duty of watchfulness rests upon the driver of a street-car approaching a street crossing where he has reason to suppose that young children may be engaged in coasting or sliding down a neighboring hill, and across the car track, although such conduct on the part of the children is unlawful.

2. Verdict held justified to the effect that the parents of a child about six years old were not chargeable with negligence in allowing him to go out of the house to play within their own premises fronting on a public street; also as to the amount of the verdict for an act of negligence causing the death of such a child.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; CHARLES D. KERR, Judge.

Action by John Strutzel, as administrator, against the St. Paul City Railway Company to recover for the death of his intestate through defendant's negligence. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,300. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. J. Horn, for appellant.

Butts & Jaques, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is prosecuted by an administrator under the statute to recover damages for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the defendant, and resulting in the death of the intestate. The plaintiff recovered a verdict, and the defendant has appealed from an order refusing a new trial. It is contended that the evidence did not show negligence on the part of the defendant, especially because the deceased unlawfully put himself in the place of danger, and it is urged that the plaintiff owed to him no duty of watchfulness to avoid the accident which followed. A brief statement of the facts, as we must suppose them to have been found by the jury, will show that in this respect the case was a proper one for the determination of the jury. In this statement we embrace together facts which were undisputed, and such as were so far supported by the evidence that the jury might deem them to have been as here indicated. The boy who was injured was of the age of 5 years and 10 months. He lived with his parents in a house situate on the north side of Rondo street, the course of which street is east and west. Along this street ran the defendant's street-cars, drawn by horses. About 90 feet east of the house Rondo street is crossed by Arundel street, running north and south. From the south, Arundel street descends in a considerable declivity to Rondo street. In the winter-time boys used to come here and slide down this hill into Rondo street, and across the car tracks. They had been doing so for some days prior to the accident. The driver who was managing the car by which this boy was injured was accustomed to pass this point about every hour of the day. This use of the street by the boys was unlawful, as the jury were informed. The accident occurred in the day-time. As the street-car was approaching this crossing from the west, the boy was...