Ekman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.

24 N.W. 291, 34 Minn. 24, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 150
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 15, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 N.W. 291 (Ekman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.) 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
Ekman v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co., 24 N.W. 291, 34 Minn. 24, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 150 (Mich. 1885).

Opinions

Beery, J.

The complaint alleges that defendant “negligently and wilfully” permitted one of its turn-tables to be and remain in a dangerous and unsafe condition in the respect of leaving a dangerous opening in the same “unprotected;” that on June 29, 1884, one of defendant’s ears, in charge of its servant, was driven upon the turn-table, and carelessly and negligently swung around thereon, while plaintiff’s child, who was of tender years, (four years old,) and without judgment or discretion, was standing on said turn-table; that by reason of the negligence of defendant the child’s foot passed through the dangerous opening and he was grievously injured, etc. Clearly the complaint states a cause of action, to wit, for an injury to the child by reason of defendant’s negligence. If there was contributory negligence on the part of the child or its parents, that is matter of defence. There is nothing on the face of the complaint from which it is necessarily to be inferred.' It was not necessary that all the faets constituting defendant’s negligence should be set out in specific detail. Clark v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 28 Minn. 69. If the fact admitted on argument by plaintiff and considered by the court below, viz., that the driver of the car did not know that the child was on the turn-table when the car was being turned, be taken as alleged in the complaint, there is still a cause of action alleged, for the faets and circumstances might have been such as to make it his duty as defendant’s servant to know it, and negligence in him as such servant not [25]*25to know it, especially in view of the alleged dangerous and unsafe condition of the turn-table.

Order reversed.

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

Related

McLeod v. Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Co.
117 P. 749 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
Collett v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
63 P. 225 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Danbeck v. New Jersey Traction Co.
31 A. 1038 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.W. 291, 34 Minn. 24, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ekman-v-minneapolis-street-railway-co-minn-1885.