Thompson v. Great N. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 April 1900
• Citation: 79 Minn. 291,82 N.W. 637
• Parties: THOMPSON v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

79 Minn. 291

82 N.W. 637

THOMPSON

v.GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 27, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Kandiyohi county; Gorham Powers, Judge.

Action by Charles W. Thompson against the Great Northern Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

This is an action to recover damages for the loss of the plaintiff's right leg caused by the giving away of one of the rods or grab irons constituting the ladder on the side of a car. Held:

1. That the defendant's inspectors, when inspecting the ladder, were not bound to apply any physical force to the grab irons to discover latent defects, unless a careful inspection by the eye disclosed some defect or probable weakness. But, if such careful observation would have disclosed that one of the grab irons, or the bolt fastening it to the car, was out of place, the inspectors would have been guilty of negligence if they failed to discover the open condition of the grab iron, and apply all reasonable physical tests to determine the cause of its abnormal condition, and whether such condition was a safe one.

2. That the verdict for the plaintiff is sustained by the evidence.

3. That the trial court did not err in refusing certain requests for instruction to the jury, and that the charge as given was correct.

4. That an award of $7,500 as damages to the plaintiff is not so excessive as to justify any interference with the verdict. C. Wellington, for appellant.

Frank D. Larrabee, for respondent.

START, C. J.

The plaintiff on January 21, 1897, was a freight train conductor on one of defendant's trains. While attempting in the line of his duty to climb to the top of a car and using the ladder on the side thereof, one of the rounds gave way, whereby he was thrown to the ground, and the wheels of the car passed over his right leg, inflicting such injuries that it was necessary to amputate the leg below the knee. This action was brought to recover damages for such injuries on the ground that they were caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to properly inspect and keep in a safe condition the car in question. Verdict for the plaintiff for $7,500, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The assignments of error raise three general questions for our consideration. They are: Is the verdict supported by the evidence? Did the trial court err in its instructions to the jury? Are the damages awarded excessive?

1. The defendant's first contention is that there was no credible evidence tending to show any actionable negligence on its part. Except as to one matter, there is little conflict in the evidence. It is practically admitted that the plaintiff was injured as he testified, that he was in the discharge of his duty as the servant of the defendant at the time, and that he was not guilty of contributory negligence. The ladder from which the plaintiff fell was made of several curved iron rods some 18 inches long and five-eighths of an inch in circumference. Each end of the rods was flattened, with a hole through it, and was one-half of an inch in thickness. These rods or ‘grab irons,’ as they are usually called, were fastened to the side of the car by iron bolts passing through each end, and screwed into the corner post and side of the car, with the inside of the head of the bolt pressing against the outside of the flattened end, and the inside of the latter against the outside of the car. The plaintiff stepped upon the lower grab iron of the ladder, and the end which was fastened to the corner post of the car gave way by reason of the breaking of the screw bolt, and he was thrown down, and injured, as stated. One piece of the bolt remained in the corner post, and the other hung in the grab iron. Both were preserved, and were received in evidence on the trial of this case, and exhibited, with the corner post, to this court, on the hearing of this appeal. There was an old flaw or crack in the bolt at the joint where it broke, extending from one side to its center, which was the cause of the bolt breaking and the grab iron giving way. This defect could not have been discovered by a visual inspection of the grab irons, which is the usual and approved method of inspection, unless the screw bolt or grab iron were out of place. This brings us to the pivotal and disputed question in this case, which is: Could the defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, have discovered before the accident the unsafe condition of the grab iron? It was the duty of the defendant to inspect the grab irons, and the answer to the question depends upon whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant might have discovered the condition of the grab iron by a reasonably careful inspection. Two inspections, by different inspectors, were given the car in question,-one before it was loaded, and the other after it was placed in the train,-and neither of the inspectors found any defects in any of the grab irons. The system of inspection adopted by the defendant and followed by the two inspectors was by...