The Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Jennie

• Decision Date: 05 July 1902
• Docket Number: 12,482
• Citation: 69 P. 338,65 Kan. 390
• Parties: THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. JENNIE V. COLUMBIA
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

69 P. 338

65 Kan. 390

THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. JENNIE V. COLUMBIA

No. 12,482

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 5, 1902

Decided July, 1902.

Error from Morris district court; O. L. MOORE, judge.

Judgment reversed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. PERSONAL INJURY -- Proximate and Remote Causes. In a case where two distinct, successive causes, wholly unrelated in operation, contribute toward the production of an accident resulting in injury and damage, one of such causes must be the proximate, and the other the remote, cause of the injury.

2. PERSONAL INJURY -- Proximate Cause Only Basis of Action. A prior and remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action for the recovery of damages if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the condition, or give rise to the occasion, by which the injury was made possible if there intervened, between such prior or remote cause and the injury, a distinct, successive, unrelated and efficient cause of the injury.

3. PERSONAL INJURY -- Question of Law for Court -- Finding of Jury Inconclusive. In a case where it is either admitted, or from the facts as found established, that two distinct, successive causes, unrelated in their operation, conjoined to produce a given injury, the question of remote and proximate cause becomes one of law for the decision of the court, and not of fact for the determination of the jury, and the determination of this question of law by the jury is not binding or conclusive on the court.

Waggener, Horton & Orr, for plaintiff in error.

Humphrey & Humphrey, and John Maloy, for defendant in error.

POLLOCK J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

POLLOCK, J.:

C. D. Columbia, a locomotive fireman in the employ of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, was killed by the derailment of his engine at the station of Langley, on said road. His widow, Jennie V. Columbia, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, brought this action to recover damages on account of negligence of the company, resulting in his death. The acts of negligence charged were: (1) That the company negligently permitted several heavy grain doors to be piled and to remain upon a raised platform at the west end of its depot at the station of Langley, near the track upon which the engine which Columbia was firing was scheduled to pass on the night of May 9, 1899, which doors, being there so negligently placed, were blown off, falling upon the track, derailing the engine, and causing the death; (2) that it was the duty of the company to provide a reasonably safe and clear track for the engine, but, in disregard of its duty in this respect, it negligently permitted said doors to remain upon the track after being blown there by the wind, thus obstructing the track and rendering it unsafe for use, the result of which negligence caused the death of Columbia. The general verdict was for the plaintiff. In addition to the general verdict, at the request of defendant, the jury made special findings of fact from the evidence, as follows:

"Ques. 1. How long had C. D. Columbia, deceased, been in the employ of the defendant company prior to May 9, 1899? Ans. About seven years.

"Q. 2. In what capacity had the said C. D. Columbia been employed by the defendant prior to May 9, 1899? A. Two years in roundhouse and five years fireman on locomotive.

"Q. 3. In his capacity as fireman on locomotive-engine, did his duty require him to pass and repass said station where said doors were piled many times day and night prior to the evening of May 9, 1899? A. Yes.

"Q. 4. If question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, then state how frequently the said C. D. Columbia had passed said depot previous to the date of the said accident. A. According to evidence, about 600 times in the five years.

"Q. 5. For what length of time previous to the date of the said accident had said doors been piled on said depot platform? A. Since the road had been in operation.

"Q. 6. Were the same piled in a conspicuous place on the platform, where they could easily be seen by the said C. D. Columbia and other employees passing to and fro over the track? A. Yes.

"Q. 7. Was it the usual and ordinary practice of the defendant company to pile grain doors upon the platform of their various stations in the manner in which the grain doors were piled at the station of Langley on the evening of May 9, 1899, and prior thereto? A. No.

"Q. 8. If you answer question No. 7 'no,' or in the negative, then state what was the practice of defendant with reference to piling of grain doors along its line of road at other stations. A. At stations where there were elevators, near the elevator, and at the depot where there is no elevator.

"Q. 9. How many grain doors were piled on the depot platform at Langley on the evening of May 9, 1899? A. From eleven to fifteen.

"Q. 10. What were the dimensions and weight of said grain doors so piled on said platform of the depot at Langley on the evening of May 9, 1899? A. About five and one-half to six and one-half feet; weight, from 70 to 100 pounds.

"Q. 11. How far from the track on which deceased was injured were the said grain doors piled on the platform of said station? A. From fifteen to twenty-two feet.

"Q. 12. For how many years prior to May 9, 1899, had it been the custom to pile the grain doors on the depot platform at Langley, Kan.? A. From ten to fourteen years.

"Q. 13. If you find that it had been the custom or practice of said defendant company to pile the grain doors on the depot platform at Langley, Kan., then state if there had ever before been an accident similar to the one which resulted in the injury complained of, or any other accident by reason of the piling of grain doors on said depot platform? A. No."

"Q. 15. During the time that you find it has been the custom or practice of the defendant company to cause its grain doors to be piled on the depot platform at Langley, Kan., had any accident ever resulted on account of said grain doors being so piled? A. No.

"Q. 16. Were one or more of said grain doors carried, by an unusual and extraordinary wind-storm or severe gale, from the place where they were piled onto defendant's track? A. By severe gale."

"Q. 20. Was said wind-storm of such a character as to blow off a bracket on said depot? A. No.

"Q. 21. If you answer question No. 20 'no,' or in the negative, then state what damage, if any, was done to said depot by reason of said wind-storm. A. Two battens ripped off and two brackets damaged."

"Q. 24. At the time said doors were blown onto said track, was there any agent or employee of the defendant company on duty in or about the said depot building? A. No.

"Q. 25. Did any employee of the defendant company have any notice or knowledge that said grain doors or any thereof had been blown onto the track previous to the injury complained of? A. No."

"Q. 27. How long did the said grain doors which were blown onto the track remain on the track before the accident occurred? A. No evidence to show.

"Q. 28. If there had been no wind-storm or severe gale on the evening of May 9, 1899, would the accident complained of have occurred? A. We believe not.

"Q. 29. Was the wind-storm or severe gale which carried the door from the pile on the platform to the track where the accident occurred the proximate cause of the accident? A. No.

"Q. 30. If you answer the next preceding question 'no,' or in the negative, then state what was the proximate cause of the accident. A. By piling grain doors on elevated platform in an exposed position."

The defendant filed its motions for judgment in its favor on these findings, notwithstanding the general verdict, and for a new trial, which motions were overruled and judgment entered on the verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

The single question for our consideration is, Was defendant entitled to judgment on the special findings made by the jury, notwithstanding the general verdict? It is obvious that, under the findings made, the second claim of negligence pleaded is eliminated from the controversy, for, the burden of proof resting upon the plaintiff to prove the acts of negligence charged, and there being, as found by the jury, "no evidence to show" how long the grain doors remained upon the track before the engine arrived at the place of derailment, negligence in permitting an obstruction to remain upon the track was not proved. As to the remaining act of negligence charged, on the findings made, a much more grave and serious controversy arises.

From the findings it is learned that the deceased had been employed by the company as locomotive fireman on its line of railway for five years, during which time he had passed the station of Langley about 600 times. It was the custom of the company at stations where no elevator was located to pile the grain doors at the depot. There was no elevator at Langley. The company had piled the grain doors upon the depot platform at this station since the construction and operation of the road, a period of some ten to fourteen years. There were, on the night of the injury, from eleven to fifteen of these doors, in size about five and one-half by six and one-half feet in dimensions, in weight from 70 to 100 pounds, piled in the usual place and manner about fifteen to twenty-two feet from the track. During all the years in which the road had been operated these grain doors had been so piled and no accident had resulted therefrom. On the night in question a severe gale blew one or more of them from the place where located upon the track, resulting in such obstruction as to derail the engine, causing the death of deceased. Had the severe gale not blown, the injury complained of would not have happened. ...