Cain v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

39 N.W. 635, 39 Minn. 297, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 94
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

The acts of defendant’s servants in putting plaintiff off the train were a violation of the duty to safely carry him, — a duty it had intrusted to its servants in charge of the train. The acts-of those servants in and about the management of the train, and in receiving, excluding, or putting off passengers, were the acts of defendant. The complaint shows sufficiently that the relation of carrier and passenger existed between defendant and plaintiff, and that those in charge of the train wrongfully expelled him from it when it was going at a rate of speed that rendered it very dangerous. Defendant is responsible for such acts of its servants. Du Laurans v. First Div., etc., R. Co., 15 Minn. 29, (49.) The other points made need, not be mentioned.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cain v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 39 N.W. 635, 39 Minn. 297, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 94 (Mich. 1888).

39 N.W. 635 (Cain v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cram v. Laconia
57 L.R.A. 282 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1901)
Indianapolis Union Railway Co. v. Cooper
33 N.E. 219 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)