Tay v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Kandiyohi county to recover $15,000' for personal injuries. The case was tried before Qvale, J., who, at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, granted a motion for dismissal. From an order denying a motion for a new. trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
START, O. J.
The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a sectionhand, and on March 9, 1906, he was injured while engaged with the section foreman in the repair of the defendant’s railway tracks by the alleged negligence of the foreman, and he brought this action in the district court of the county of Kandiyohi to recover the damages sustained by reason of the injury. The trial court at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence dismissed the action, and he appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The basis of the decision of the trial court was that the work the plaintiff…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jemming v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Blomquist v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Kreuzer v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3Cited by10 opinions
- Schoen v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Jelos v. Oliver Iron Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Janssen v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Christiansen v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Hanson v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.