Reiter v. Winona & St Peter Railroad

75 N.W. 219, 72 Minn. 225, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 659
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 12, 1898
DocketNos. 10,703-(44)
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 219 (Reiter v. Winona & St Peter 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
Reiter v. Winona & St Peter Railroad, 75 N.W. 219, 72 Minn. 225, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 659 (Mich. 1898).

Opinion

COLLINS, J.1

From the complaint herein, it appears that plaintiff was a common laborer in defendant’s employ, engaged with others in the loading of flat cars with a steam shovel at a gravel pit, all work being done under the direction of a foreman having full and complete charge; that it became necessary to move the shovel nearer to the gravel, whereupon the foreman ordered plaintiff to go behind it, and between it and the embankment, “which was almost a perpendicular bank of soil and gravel, about twenty feet in height,” there to assist in laying a new track upon which to run the shovel ; that, while plaintiff was obeying these orders, the embankment caved, and the soil and gravel fell upon plaintiff, causing the injuries upon which he bases the right of action. There are other allegations not here material, as we view the case, which comes before us on an appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.

It is nowhere alleged that the embankment, almost perpendicu[226]*226lar, and 20 feet high, caved in by reason of any other than natural causes,—the operation of the laws of gravitation. Assuming, as we must, that the plaintiff was a person of ordinary intelligence, he well knew and understood the operation of these natural laws, and therefore should have anticipated the result. The danger constantly attending him when at work was to be apprehended, and he assumed the risk. No distinction can be made between the complaint now before us and that considered in Swanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 184, 70 N. W. 978, in which we held that a general demurrer .to the complaint was well taken under the rules already laid down in this court. See the cases there cited. The demurrer should have been sustained.

Order reversed.

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

Related

Peterson v. Modjeski
117 N.W.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
Dobreff v. St. Paul Gaslight Co.
149 N.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Dimetre v. Red Wing Sewer Pipe Co.
148 N.W. 1078 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Arnold v. Dauchy
131 N.W. 625 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)
Christienson v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.
74 P. 876 (Utah Supreme Court, 1903)
Kreuzer v. Great Northern Railway Co.
86 N.W. 413 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1901)
Walker v. Scott
64 P. 615 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Kletschka v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
83 N.W. 133 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Hill v. Winston
75 N.W. 1030 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 N.W. 219, 72 Minn. 225, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiter-v-winona-st-peter-railroad-minn-1898.