Walker v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 November 1900
• Parties: WALKER v. ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

81 Minn. 404

84 N.W. 222

WALKER

v.ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.¹

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 22, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; George L. Bunn, Judge.

Action by Rose Walker against the St. Paul City Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Collins and Brown, JJ., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is not the duty of a person seeking passage on an electric street car to assume that proper signals to stop the car will be disregarded, but such passenger may have regard to the probable conduct of the person in charge of the car, and act accordingly, when such reliance is not apparently attended with danger.

2. It is not, as a matter of law, negligence for a person intending to take passage on a street car to assume that such car is running at the customary rate of speed, and to act with reference to such custom, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

3. Evidence considered, and held to support the finding of the jury that defendant negligently disregarded signals to stop one of its electric cars, which was run at a reckless rate of speed past the proper stopping place, and that plaintiff was not negligent, under the facts found by the jury in this case, in passing before such car, when intending to enter the same as a passenger. Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

Henry Conlin, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Action for damages sustained by plaintiff while attempting to take passage on one of defendant's Interurban cars. Plaintiff had a verdict. After motion for judgment upon the verdict, or for a new trial in the alternative, which were denied, defendant appeals.

In adopting the required inferences in favor of the verdict, the following facts must be accepted as true on this appeal: The Interurban electric line between St. Paul and Minneapolis runs over University avenue upon double tracks, the eastern-bound cars running on the south and the western-bound cars on the north track, making it necessary for St. Paul passengers approaching a car from the north side of the avenue to cross both tracks in order to enter the car gate, which opens on the south side on the stoppage of the car. At the first stopping place west of the Minnesota Transfer Bridge there is a crosswalk leading from the sidewalk on the north of the avenue transversely across the same to plank platforms, 16 feet wide, on either side of the car tracks, which were placed there by defendant. There was no sidewalk along the south side of the avenue, and the only purpose of the crosswalk or the plank platforms referred to was the convenience of passengers who had occasion to get on or off the cars at that point. The distance from the north sidewalk and the planking on the south side is 68 feet. At the time of the accident all cars running over the Interurban line were required to stop at this point upon signal, and the public were apprised of this fact by a sign placed upon one of defendant's adjacent electric poles, which reads, ‘Electric trains stop here.’ There were numerous business places and dwellings in the vicinity, and frequent occasion to stop the cars at this place, which is commonly known as ‘Minnesota Transfer.’ At the time in question the plaintiff had been visiting friends near the Minnesota Transfer, and had gone to that point from St. Paul on the afternoon in question. Returning, about 11 o'clock at night, she and two gentlemen friends went to the point on the north side of the avenue sidewalk where the plank crosswalk leaves the same for the street-car platforms. At this point an Interurban car coming from Minneapolis was discovered by its headlight approaching, more than 700 feet distant. One of the gentlemen (William Ryan) left plaintiff, and ran rapidly across the tracks to the south platform, for the purpose of signaling the car to stop. Plaintiff immediately followed, walking at a quick pace, supposing that she would have ample time to reach the platform before the arrival of the car. Ryan, standing on the platform, signaled the car with his hands in the usual manner several times. As near as the evidence can justify estimates of distances, the car was 400 feet away when Ryan commenced signaling. The headlight of the car was burning brightly at the time, and enabled the motoneer to see ahead 400 or 500 feet. The plaintiff, in passing to the platform, looked in the direction of the approaching car, between the north rail and the sidewalk, and also looked again while she was passing over the north rail, and says that it seemed to her at both times that the car was slacking speed. The glare of the headlight was so strong that she was unable to distinctly determine either its distance or speed, but was inclined to believe, from the signals that she had seen given for her benefit, that the car was coming to a stop, and, relying upon this fact, and that she would have time to cross the tracks in safety, kept on until at the moment of leaving the south rail she was struck and seriously injured by the approaching car, which was running at the rate of 45 miles an hour, and was not stopped until 300 feet after the collision. There was evidence tending to show that the maximum rate of speed at this crossing, when no stoppage was to be made, was 20 miles an hour. The car in question had an admitted speed capacity of 45 miles an hour, and there is nothing improbable in the view that it was running at that rate of speed at the time of the accident.

The serious contention on the part of defendant is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in passing in front of the car. If it is so clear, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's conduct was negligent, under the circumstances detailed, it is our duty to set the verdict aside and order a new trial. If not, the jury were the proper arbiters to determine this question, and we have no right to interfere with their conclusion. It must be conceded, in reviewing this record, that the defendant was negligent in disobeying proper signals, and in running its car at a reckless rate of speed over the crossing. Again, at the time the signal to stop was given by Ryan, for plaintiff's benefit, she had no apparent reason to doubt that it would be obeyed, or to doubt either that the car was running at its usual rate of speed at that place. If such had been the fact, there is no doubt that she would have had ample time to have safely passed over the tracks to the platform, which was the place provided by defendant to receive her as a passenger. It may be conceded that if the plaintiff was aware that the car was running at its full speed, and knowingly took chances in rushing before it, her conduct would have been negligent, but this is far from being clear. The evidence shows that the injured lady was above the average stature, and, with her wearing apparel, it would have been extremely difficult for her in the nighttime, to have moved faster than a quick walk. It is true that she moved rapidly from the sidewalk to the south platform, but not more so than is usual among people taking passage on electric cars, the movements of which are often characterized by haste, in an anxiety to make quick time. She states that she walked quickly, for fear that she would be left, which supposition is not unreasonable. She might not, in the nighttime, accurately determine the speed of the approaching car by its headlight. Neither do we think the claim of counsel that she must have known of its speed from observing the flash of the car lights upon the poles by the side of the track is certain. She was not required, if she could do so, to make nice calculations of that kind. Nor, as a matter of law, can we hold that plaintiff was bound to divert her steps from the crosswalk, which was the usual and proper approach to the platforms, in order to go around to the rear of the car. Had she done so, the car might not have waited for her, and such a diversion required her to leave a safe and convenient place for foot travel to pass upon the uneven irregularities of the highway, and to pick her way over four tracks, and to adopt this insecure course upon a supposition that the car would disregard proper signals, and run by her at a reckless rate of speed. Had there been good reason for such a supposition, she should not, and probably would not, have approached the car at all. After plaintiff had observed the car the last time before she was struck, the inference is not unreasonable, and may have been adopted by the jury, that she walked upon the south track when the car was 100 feet distant. If she then knew it was running at 40 miles an hour, and was disregarding her signals and would not stop, it might be said, as a matter of law, that she was negligent in going forward; but we cannot, without weighing diverse speculations and usurping the functions of the jury, decide upon the effect of this headlight upon her vision, or the reasonableness of her necessarily instantaneous views at the time. It may have been extremely difficult to discriminate between the effects of a headlight at night, and decide upon its probable distance from her, or to calculate upon the rate of speed of the car; and it must not be forgotten either that the judgment of plaintiff in these respects may have been influenced by the reasonable supposition that the car was running at its proper speed, and that it would stop upon the signals given for her benefit. We cannot hold, upon the record, that such suspicions as would convict this plaintiff of contributory negligence must be indulged in by those who patronize defendant, to relieve it from the consequences of its own misconduct. Amidst the complicated affairs of city life in the use of street cars by their patrons, the same confidence should be indulged in in behalf of passengers that is due on the other hand to the company. Neither are obliged to assume that legal duties by the other will be...