Thayer v. Hines
| Decision Date | 05 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21,644 |
| Citation | 176 N.W. 752,145 Minn. 240 |
| Parties | LILLIAN THAYER v. WALKER D. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $15,000 for the death of plaintiff's intestate while in defendant's employ. The amended answer alleged that the death of decedent was the direct result of his negligence and that he fully appreciated the risks inherent in and attaching to his employment. The case was tried before Molyneaux, J who denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $3,150. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Master and servant -- knowledge of switchmen -- question for jury.
1. The evidence is sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether a railroad switchman, who was throwing a switch, knew or had reason to believe, that a car, which was standing near by, was about to be moved.
Master and servant -- knowledge of switchman -- question for jury.
2. Where only one engine is moving in a railroad yard, the rules for determining negligence toward a member of the engine crew, are substantially the same as they would be in any other locality. The evidence is such as to raise an issue of fact, as to whether defendant's employees were negligent in moving an engine upon plaintiff's decedent, without warning.
Contributory negligence -- assumption of risk.
3. Neither contributory negligence nor assumption of risk was conclusively shown.
M. M. Joyce and D. C. Edwards, for appellant.
George T. Simpson, John F. Dahl and Eugene S. Bibb, for respondent.
1. Louis Thayer was a member of a switching crew of defendant Railway Transfer Company in its yards in Minneapolis. The other members of the crew were the engineer and fireman, the foreman, Joseph, and switchmen, Hearn and Palmatier. It was 7:40 p.m. in March and it was dark. The crew was about to quit for the day. Their last work had been to distribute a string of about 14 cars. This work had been completed, except that one car had been permitted to stand afoul of a switch. The engine and crew were in the northeasterly part of the yard. The roundhouse was in the southeasterly part of the yard, but to reach it they were obliged to go to the westerly end of the yard, then wye and go east over other tracks on the southerly side of the yard. In this easterly course it was necessary that two switches be thrown. At the conclusion of the day's work, Thayer "most generally" threw one of them, known as "the short 1 switch." On the evening in question, after finishing in the northeasterly part of the yard, the engine, with the crew all on board, started southwesterly on the track, and in the direction they would go if going to the round house. When about opposite the switch Thayer was to throw, Thayer and Palmatier dropped off the engine and each went to his respective switch. Thayer's switch was on the track next south of the track, numbered 1, on which stood the box car above mentioned, and east of the box car. The switch stand comes within three feet eight inches of track 1 and within a foot of a box car passing on that track. While Thayer was standing near his switch, and either on or near to track 1, the engine kicked the box car to the east, and it struck Thayer and injured him so that he died. Plaintiff, as administratrix of his estate, sued for damages and was given a verdict. Defendant appeals.
The question whether Thayer had been advised, or had reason to know, that this box car was to be moved, is of great importance. His conduct would indicate that he did not know it. The position in which he stood would indicate that he did not know it. There had been nothing in the movement of the engine up to the time he left it that would advise him of it. It pursued the course that...
To continue reading
Request your trial