Miller v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $25,000 for injuries received while switchman in defendant’s employ and $250 for surgical expenses. The answer alleged the injury was caused by plaintiff’s negligence, that the physical conditions attending the work done by plaintiff were observable and that plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $25,000 for injuries received while switchman in defendant’s employ and $250 for surgical expenses. The answer alleged the injury was caused by plaintiff’s negligence, that the physical conditions attending the work done by plaintiff were observable and that plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk. The case was tried before Michael, J., who at the close of the evidence granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Dibell, C.
Action for personal injuries. A verdict was directed for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as foreman of a switching crew in its Dayton’s Bluff yards in St. Paul. Between one and two o’clock of the morning of December 4, 1916, he was taking a drag of cars from the Burlington yards to the Great Northern yards, a distance of some three miles. He got onto the footboard at the head end of his engine, next to the first car, the engine moving'in backward motion. The yard clerk had given him…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wolfe v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Frye v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Pursglove v. Monongahela Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925