Collins v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Collins v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad

14 N.W. 60, 30 Minn. 31, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 24, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 14 N.W. 60 (Collins v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad, 14 N.W. 60, 30 Minn. 31, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 12 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

The action is by plaintiff, as administratrix, to recover for an injury to her intestate, Cornelius Collins. He was a laborer employed by defendant in repairing its track, and, at the time [33]*33when hurt;, was, with others, going along on the track upon a handcar after nightfall. A train coming along on the track ran upon the hand-car, and injured Collins so that he died. The complaint alleges that there was negligence in running the train; that there was no light in front of the locomotive; and that it had not what is called a head-light. The negligent omission to provide a head-light (or lantern) upon the locomotive, — it appearing that a head-light is necessary to the safe running of a train in the dark, — would have been the negligence of the defendant, as between it and its servants, for which it would have been liable to them for injuries caused by it. Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40. There was, however, no evidence that there was not a head-light on the locomotive; on the contrary, the evidence was full and satisfactory that it had a head-light. There was evidence enough that it was not lighted at the time. That was due to the neglect of those in charge of the train, — fellow-servants of Collins, — for whose negligence the defendant would not be liable to him or his representatives. Foster v. Minn. Cent. Ry. Co., 14 Minn. 277, (360.) The action was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

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

Gileillan, C. J.

The action is by plaintiff, as administratrix, to recover for an injury to her intestate, Cornelius Collins. He was a laborer employed by defendant in repairing its track, and, at the time [33]*33when hurt;, was, with others, going along on the track upon a handcar after nightfall. A train coming along on the track ran upon the hand-car, and injured Collins so that he died. The complaint alleges that there was negligence in running the train; that there was no light in front of the locomotive; and that it had not what is called a head-light. The negligent omission to provide a head-light (or lantern) upon the locomotive, — it appearing that a head-light is necessary to the safe running of a train in the dark, — would have been the negligence of the defendant, as between it and its servants, for which it would have been liable to them for injuries caused by it. Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40. There was, however, no evidence that there was not a head-light on the locomotive; on the contrary, the evidence was full and satisfactory that it had a head-light. There was evidence enough that it was not lighted at the time. That was due to the neglect of those in charge of the train, — fellow-servants of Collins, — for whose negligence the defendant would not be liable to him or his representatives. Foster v. Minn. Cent. Ry. Co., 14 Minn. 277, (360.) The action was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.W. 60, 30 Minn. 31, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-st-paul-sioux-city-railroad-minn-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack