Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

45 N.W. 152, 43 Minn. 207, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 159
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 30, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 N.W. 152 (Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis 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
Johnson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 45 N.W. 152, 43 Minn. 207, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 159 (Mich. 1890).

Opinion

Collins, J.

Action to recover the value of a cow alleged to have been killed by the negligence of an engineer having charge of a locomotive in operation upon defendant’s road.

1. The injuries from which the animal died were inflicted at a point upon a public highway where it was crossed by defendant’s tracks, at a season of the year when cattle are prohibited, by the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. 10, § 16, subd. 6, from going at large. She was not under restraint or control in any manner, was roaming at will upon the public highway, and was “at large” in violation of the statute. The trial court erred in charging the jury, as it did, in substance, that cattle, when on a highway upon their owner’s premises, are not going at large, within the purview of the statute. Stacey v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 42 Minn. 158, (43 N. W. Rep. 905.)

2. Under the undisputed facts in the case, the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. The latter would only be liable for actual negligence on the part of the engineer; for his neglect and failure to exercise reasonable care, and to use due diligence to avoid injury to the cow, upon discovering that she was in the vicinity of the track, and especially after seeing that she had turned,around, and was about to cross the railway ahead of his train. There was not a particle of testimony which indicated that, from the time the engineer first saw the cow in the highway, with others, he neglected [208]*208or failed in Ms duty in any respect. Upon the other hand, it clearly appears that he made all reasonable efforts to avoid a collision, and in due time. .

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Reddington v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
78 N.W. 800 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 N.W. 152, 43 Minn. 207, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-minn-1890.