81 Minn. 363 | Minn. | 1900
The plaintiff’s intestate, Thomas P. Mathews, was killed by the derailment of a construction train upon which he was riding, which was operated and controlled by the defendants Guthrie & Co. This action was brought against them and other parties by the widow of Mr. Mathews, as administratrix of his estate, to recover damages resulting from his death, which was caused, as the complaint alleges, by the negligence of the several defendants. At the close of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for all of the defendants except Guthrie & Co., hereafter designated as the defendants, and submitted the cause to the jury as to them. Verdict for the plaintiff for $5,000, and the defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial.
The assignments of error logically fall into three general groups: First. Did the trial court err in its rulings as to the' admissibility of evidence? Second. Did it err in its instructions to the jury? Third. Is the verdict sustained by the evidence?
1. The defendants were engaged as contractors in building for the
On August 7, 1898, the construction of the railway had been so far completed westward and across the Mississippi river at Bemidji that the construction train could cross the bridge at that point, although the bridge was not then entirely completed. On the day named the construction train started out from its siding, six miles east of the bridge, and when it reached the bridge it left a car of bridge material thereon, and proceeded westward across the bridge. The train on its return took the empty car from which the bridge material had been removed. The plaintiff’s intestate, Mr. Mathews, boarded the train on this return trip at the bridge, and the train proceeded on its way towards the siding for dinner and more material. It was necessary to back the train, and it ran upon an obstruction on the track. The car on which Mr. Mathews was riding was derailed, and he was thrown upon the track and run over by a car, and so injured thereby that he died on the next day.
Upon the trial it was an important issue whether or not Mr. Mathews was rightfully upon the train, with the consent of the defendants, at the time he was injured. As bearing upon this issue, the plaintiff was permitted, over the objection and exception of the defendants, to give in evidence the testimony of a witness (Mr. Langdon), tending to show that Mr. Mathews boarded the train for the purpose of going back for the balance of the material that was
It is, however, urged that the fact, if it be such, that the deceased was on the train for the purpose of going down to the siding to see about getting up the bridge material, was immaterial, because there was no evidence that his purpose was communicated to the conductor of the train. Whether so expressly communicated or not, the fact would be material, in connection with the other evidence in the case, as tending to show that at the time of the accident he was on the train for a purpose connected with the work of construction, and hence rightfully there. The trial court did not err in receiving the evidence.
The witness Langdon was also permitted, over the defendants’ exception, to give testimony tending to show that it was the custom of Mr. Mathews and others connected with the bridge work to ride back and forth on the construction train from point to point as the work progressed, and that no objections were ever made by any one. The defendants urge that neither the defendants, nor any of their agents who had authority to act for them, ever knew of fhia
2. The trial court, at defendants’ request, instructed the jury that, if the deceased was a bare licensee upon the train, the defendants were not bound to exercise any care towards him, except to refrain from wanton and wilful negligence. The court, however, submitted to the jury the question whether the deceased was on the train with the consent and invitation, express or' implied, of defendants, and in this connection instructed them, in effect, that if they found from the evidence that it was the habit of the deceased, his partner, and the men engaged in the construction of the railway line, to ride on the construction train to and from their work to their camps and boarding places, and to the different parts of their work, and this practice was known to the defendants, and they made no objections to it, and the deceased was on the train by reason of such custom, they would be justified in finding that he was rightfully there, not as a passenger, but by the invitation and consent of the defendants. The defendants excepted to the instruction on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury upon the question of the defendants’ knowledge of the custom. We are of the opinion that there was.
The evidence we have already referred to tended to establish such knowledge on the part of the defendants. The work in which they were engaged was the building of one hundred miles of railway. To facilitate the work in all of its parts, they controlled and operated the construction train. They were interested in the work of construction, as they were the contractors, and had a common inter
The question whether the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict is disposed of by our answer to the next question.
3. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict? We answer the question in the affirmative. There was, as already stated, evidence tending to show that the deceased' was on the train by the defendants’ implied invitation and consent. If such were the case, —and the jury must have so found under the instructions of the court, — the defendants owed to him the duty of ordinary care in the management of the train. While the evidence is conflicting as to whether such care was exercised, we are of the opinion, upon the whole evidence, that it was a question of fact for the jury, and that the verdict on this point is fairly sustained by the evidence.
Order affirmed.