Case ID: wis_162/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      KebwiN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Respondent.
    
      February 24
    
    March 14, 1916.
    
    
      Appeal: Affirmance by divided court: Railroads: Death of employee.
    
    In an action for death of a railway employee who was run over by a car in defendant’s yards, a judgment upon a directed verdict for the defendant is affirmed by a divided court.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J..Turner, Circuit Judge.
    
      Afirmad.
    
    This action was brought by the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Jesse Martin, deceased, to recover for the death of her husband, said Jesse Martin, who was killed in the yards of the defendant November 8, 1913. The deceased was night switchman, and shortly after arriving at the yards on the evening in question was run over and killed by a car that was “shunted” over a team track by other cars that were “kicked” through the yards.
    The complaint sets forth two causes of action. In one it was claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the federal Employers’ Liability Act. The two causes of action are based upon the negligence of the employees of the defendant. The answer puts in issue the allegations of the complaint, and further alleges that the deceased was killed because of his own carelessness and negligence. After the evidence was all in the court directed a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of the defendant, from which this appeal was taken.
    Eor the appellant there was a brief by Glichsmcm, Gold & Corrigan, attorneys, and Henry Mahoney, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. W. L. Gold and Mr. Mahoney.
    
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by O. H. Van Alstine, II. J. Killilea, and B. M. Trump, and oral argument by Mr. Trump and Mr. Killilea.
    
   KebwiN, J.

In this case tbe judgment of tbe court below must stand, because tbe five sitting justices are divided on tbe question as to whether tbe judgment should be affirmed or reversed. Three of tbe justices, Chief Justice WiNslow and Justices YiNje and RoseNbebby, favor affirmance, while Justice Siebecxee and the writer favor reversal.

By the Court. — Judgment is affirmed.