Willett v. Ill. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1913
• Parties: WILLETT v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

122 Minn. 513

142 N.W. 883

WILLETT

v.ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Oscar Hallam, Judge.

Action by Samuel A. Willett against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. From an order denying motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The federal Safety Appliance Act (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]) imposes upon common carriers engaged in moving interstate traffic by railroad the absolute duty to equip their cars with couplers ‘that will at all times, when operated in an ordinary and reasonable manner,’ couple automatically on impact.

Couplings had been made daily for more than a year on a certain curve without any failure to couple automatically on impact. At the time of the accident, the drawbars of the cars to be coupled had several inches of play or lateral motion, and were so far out of line that the cars would not couple automatically on impact on this curve. Held, that the court cannot say as a matter of law that the couplers were not defective within the meaning of the Safety Appliance Act (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]), nor that the coupling was attempted at an improper place, and that these questions were properly submitted to the jury. Butler & Mitchell, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson and A. F. Storey, both of St. Paul, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict for personal injuries, and defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.

Defendant is a ‘common carrier engaged in moving interstate traffic by railroad’; and plaintiff, employed as the foreman of a switching crew in defendant's yards at Paducah, Ky., was injured while coupling cars then in use in moving such traffic.

On May 14, 1911, the switch engine, attached ‘head on’ to a train of two cars, pushed them upon track No. 4 in the Paducah yards to make a coupling between the front car and a car standing upon that track. Plaintiff was making the coupling. Both cars were fitted with automatic couplers and the knuckles of the couplers were properly opened; but the cars failed to couple when they came together. The train was stopped on a signal from plaintiff. From the impact the other car moved down the track far enough to leave a space of some 10 feet between it and the train. The knuckles were again opened, and, on a signal from plaintiff, the cars were again brought together and again failed to couple. The train was again stopped on a signal from plaintiff. From this impact the other car moved down the track far enough to leave a space of four or five feet between it and the train. As the cars came together the second time, plaintiff observed that the drawbars bearing the couplers were pushed to one side to such an extent that the couplers were so far out of line that they would not couple by impact while in that position. He attempted to push the drawbar upon the stationary car into line with his hands but was unable to do so. He then took hold of the ‘grab iron’ on the car with his hand, and placed his foot against the drawbar for the purpose of pushing it into proper position. At this instant the train came against the car and crushed his foot. It was the duty of those operating the train not to move it against the stationary car without a signal from plaintiff, and he claims that he...