Stacey v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Good-hue county, McCluer, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $60 for plaintiff. The action was to recover for one cow killed and two injured by defendant’s train on its railway track, and was brought in justice’s court, and an appeal therefrom taken by defendant on questions of law and fact.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
In Blais v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 34 Minn. 57, (24 N. W. Rep. 558,) this court announced that, save under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, reasonable care and diligence did not require a railway company to remove the natural accumulations of snow and ice from its cattle-guards; and such rule must be accepted as the settled law of the state upon the subject. That case was carefully considered, as is manifest from the opinion, in which the reasons for the conclusion are clearly and forcibly stated, and we remain satisfied that it was decided correctly. No special circumstances…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Christenson v. American Express Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Blais v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Witherell v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Hooper v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Palmer v. Northern Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
3Cited by7 opinions
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Hohl v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Lawson v. TruesdaleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Martin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914
- Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.