Legal Opinion

Gibson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 8, 1893No. 8076PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal by defendant, the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Hascal R. Brill, J., made August 8, 1S92, denying its motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Charles Gibson, was a locomotive engineer employed by defendant on a switch engine in its yard at Gladstone, Michigan. He claims he was injured on August 29, 1890, by a fall in the cab of this engine.

Read the full summary

Appeal by defendant, the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, from an order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Hascal R. Brill, J., made August 8, 1S92, denying its motion for a new trial. The plaintiff, Charles Gibson, was a locomotive engineer employed by defendant on a switch engine in its yard at Gladstone, Michigan. He claims he was injured on August 29, 1890, by a fall in the cab of this engine. The foot board on which he stood while running the engine was eight inches above the floor of the cab. It became loose at one end and finally went down, throwing…

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

Action for damages alleged to have been the result of defendant’s negligence while plaintiff was in its employ as a locomotive engineer. He worked a switching locomotive of peculiar construction. In the cab, elevated from the door, was a narrow foot-board or platform upon which the engineer stood when at work, that he might be the better enabled to see signals given by switch-men outside, and to handle the locomotive. On one end of this hoard or platform was a movable box. The plaintiff claimed that this footboard became loose; that he twice notified Bardsley, the person in charge of repairs,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
  2. Watson v. Minneapolis Street-Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
  3. McNulty v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hutchins v. HaffnerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
  2. Armstrong v. James & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1912
  3. Bufkins v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
  4. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. CarterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
  5. Mar v. Shew Fan QuiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API