Suprenant v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1913
• Docket Number: Nos. 18,115 - (245).,s. 18,115 - (245).
• Citation: 123 Minn. 170
• Parties: ADOLOR J. SUPRENANT v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 170

123 Minn. 170

ADOLOR J. SUPRENANT v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 18,115 - (245).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

October 17, 1913.

Action in the district court for Polk county to recover $12,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant. The answer set up the contributory negligence of plaintiff and his assumption of all risks incident to the performance of his work as brakeman, and expressly denied that defendant was guilty of the violation of any law, state or Federal, in connection with the operation of its train and particularly with reference to the flat car mentioned

Note. — As to the liability of a carrier to employee for injuries by defectively loaded car, see note in 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 384.

On the question of the effect of shipper's negligence in loading car, or as to condition of car, upon the carrier's common-law liability, see note in 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 952.

in the opinion, and denied that it was guilty of any negligence in connection with the loading of the flat car. The case was tried before Watts, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of $2,000 in favor of plaintiff. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

M. L. Countryman and A. L. Janes, for appellant.

W. E. Rowe, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff, a brakeman upon one of defendant's freight trains, recovered judgment for personal injuries sustained while engaged in the performance of his duties, and defendant appeals from such judgment.

The train included a flat car upon which two threshing machine separators were loaded. The separators were not so wide as the car, and left a narrow space along its outer edge, which the brakemen were accustomed to use as a passageway in going from one part of the train to another. This space or passageway was about twelve inches in width, except for a short distance at the side of each separator where it narrowed to about six inches in width.

In the night-time and while the train was running rapidly, plaintiff, in going from the rear of the train to the engine in the line of duty, attempted to walk along this narrow edge at the side of the separators, and sought to hold himself upon the car while doing so by grasping such parts of the separator and of the attachments thereto as were available for "handholds." There was no other practicable way to pass over this car. At the narrow part of the passageway, plaintiff grasped a pulley which gave way and he fell to the ground and sustained serious injuries. Subsequent examination disclosed that a slot or groove had been cut in the shaft and in the hub of the pulley in which to drive a key or wedge to fasten and hold the pulley in place, but that the pulley had been placed upon the end of the shaft without inserting this key or wedge. That the key had never been inserted was shown by the condition of the paint which partially filled the groove. The pulley had not been fastened or secured in any manner, and slipped off the end of the shaft when plaintiff caught hold of it.

It is undisputed that plaintiff was passing over this car in the proper and customary manner; that it was the only practicable way of doing so; and that for many years defendant had known and expected that brakemen would pass along such cars in that manner, and would rely upon grasping any available "handho...