Winchell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1902
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,969-(123).,s. 12,969-(123).
• Citation: 86 Minn. 445
• Parties: WILLIAM R. WINCHELL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

86 Minn. 445

WILLIAM R. WINCHELL v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY.¹

Nos. 12,969-(123).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 20, 1902.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Kelly, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Reversed, and judgment ordered for defendant.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

John H. Ives, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appeals from a denial of its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The only question presented for our consideration is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge of negligence against defendant. The facts are as follows: Plaintiff was injured on January 9, 1901, at the intersection of Gibbs street and Langford avenue, by being run into by one of defendant's Como-Harriet electric cars. The accident occurred at about midday. A full view of the track and the approaching car was visible to plaintiff. The car was making one of its regular trips from Minneapolis to St. Paul, and plaintiff intended to take passage on it to the latter point, the place of the accident being about midway between the two cities. As the car approached the crossing, and when about two hundred seventy feet from the same, plaintiff signaled the motorman of his intention to take passage thereon; and at about the time of doing so started on a run, or, as he expressed it, "on a little trot," towards the street car track and the point at which the car usually stopped to let on passengers. As he neared the track, and when within about six feet of it, he tripped his foot upon some object in the street, or stumbled in some way, falling upon the track, and was run into and injured. It was not necessary for him, nor did he intend, to cross the track; the track on which the car was approaching being on the same side of the street on which he was standing when he signaled it. He testified on the trial to all these facts, and further to the fact that, had he not tripped his foot or stumbled, he would not have fallen upon the track, and no injury would have resulted to him. It is claimed in his behalf that the car was running at an excessive rate of speed, and that it was the duty of the motorman to have had his car so under control that he could have stopped it after discovering plaintiff on the track in time to have prevented the accident, and that he failed to exercise proper caution in this respect....