Whitehead v. Wisconsin Central Railway Company
| Decision Date | 20 January 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,492 - (144) |
| Citation | 114 N.W. 467,103 Minn. 13 |
| Parties | EARL W. WHITEHEAD v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed December 13, 1907
Master and Servant -- Defective Telltale -- Verdict.
While operating as a brakeman respondent was knocked off the top of a freight car by a low overhead bridge, and claims appellant was guilty of negligence in maintaining a defective type of telltale and in failing to exercise a proper supervision to keep the same in order. Held:
1. That the case was submitted to the jury upon proper instructions and that the jury were justified by the evidence in finding appellant guilty of negligence as charged and that respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence, and did not, in this instance, assume the risk of his occupation, though he was familiar with the locality and voluntarily changed the customary method of inspecting the train.
2. The opinion of a witness as to the safety and reliability of telltales in use by appellant, as compared with those of other railway lines, was irrelevant and incompetent, for the reason that the jury were entitled to make their own deductions from the evidence as bearing upon the question whether appellant was negligent in maintaining the particular type of telltale involved in this action.
3. The verdict of $35,000 was not so excessive as to indicate that the jury were actuated by passion and prejudice, and the sum of $30,000, as reduced by the trial court, does not, under all the circumstances, conclusively appear to be more than just compensation for the injuries sustained.
On January 20, 1908, the following opinion was filed:
On appellant's motion for a rehearing attention is called to the fact that, in the course of the opinion, it was erroneously stated that the case was tried upon the theory that the Wisconsin statute with reference to the erection and maintenance of telltales had no application. The fact was the case was submitted to the jury upon the theory that the statute had no application, but during the course of the trial, appellant insisted that it had. As stated in the opinion, negligence on the part of the appellant was based upon the claim that appellant constructed a telltale which was not reasonably designed to prevent the ropes from becoming lodged. The statute required that the ropes be suspended from a rod or beam,...
To continue reading
Request your trial