The Saint Paul globe., 1902-05-17
Law AS TO TRESPASS
Supreme Court Savo Michael
Schreiner Had No Right
to Walk ON Track
HE ASSUMED ALL RISKS
Railroad Company Not to BIame for
Butting ProcIivities of Frisky
COw-Ten Decisions Rem
dered by Court.
HE ASSUMED ALL RISKS


three Of which were reversals Of the
lower court. Four of the cases involved
actions against railroad companies for
| damages.
In the case of Michael schreiner
| against the Great Northern road, Justice
Lovely upholds the lower court, which de-
cided adversely to the plaintiff. Schreiner
claimed that ne was walking along the
railroad track from Waverly to MeIrose,
when freigh train came laundering over
the track at forty miles an hour He
! says he stepped off the trek to allow the
! train to go by, when he was hit in the
rear by frisky COW and knocked down
IN such a way that one of his arms fell
across the track and was run over by the
train. He sued on two grounds, alleging
| first that the company, by allowing the
| entire neighborhood to use the track as
! a pathway for quarter of a century had
! virtually invited them to walk there, and
| Should therefore have exercised more
caution, in which event he thinks he
| would not have been run over In the
second place he alleged that the company
| should have had its right of way fenced
in which event the COW would not have
been where she could heave Mr. Schrefner
back upon the track when he sought to
escape danger. The supreme court finds
that Schreiner was a trespasser and had
no claim against the company on either
ground.
Justice Lovely sustains the lower
court of Hennepin county in saying the
Minneapolis & st. Louis road cannot be
held liable for the death of Genrge Bene.
dict, aged sixteen.
Benedict was cE the platform of an
excursion train. He leaned out from the
car steps, his head struck a pole and he
died from the injury. The court holds
that the railroad has no right to carry
passengers on the platform. but that il
was contributory negligence on the part
OF Benedict to lean out from the car
steps.
@Ihe same ruling is held in a brief per
curlam decision in a like case from Hen
nepin county, where Mrs Martha Durgan
sues for damages because of fatal injuries
received by her son while leaning out of
Minneapolis st. Louis car window.
NOrth-Western Loses Two
The Chicago & North Western Railway
company loses in two cases from Brown
county, where it was defendant and an.
pellant. The actions against the conn
pany were brought in one case bv
William Pfaender, and in the other by7
herman Lieber. They involve a contest
over property and attorneys fees. The
JN'ASAiiOAtl VI tIIS Drown county cOurC. Is
atnrmed in each. Justice Brown wrote
the decision in the Pfaender case and
that IN the Lieber case is by the whole
court following the Pfaender decision.
JuSuce Collins reversed the Ramsey
county district court in J. G. Shaw
Blank Book company, respondent, VS.. r.
j. Maybell, appellant. new trial is
granted. Maybell bought a printing
Plant IN st. Paul from the company, and
Icrn I.
counts which were purchased with the
business, some of which MaybelI claimed
never existed, and some of which had
been previously paid.
Syllabi:
Company Not Liable.
Mlchael Schreiner, appellant. VS. Great
Northern Railway Company, Reso 5nd-
ent., nv
!: Persons having no invitation to 60,
upon railway tracks, but who walk there
on Tor their own convenience are mere
licensees taking conditions as they find
/ them, and cannot require the railroad
company 10 protect them from dangers
WhIch are as apparent and open to their
own observation as to the company IL.
Z. Where licensee walking upon rail-
road tracks was approached by train
ana stepped therefrom to avoid collision
ana was pushed upon the rails by a
straylng COW paSturing on the right of
way, the failure of the company to build
the statutory fences cannot be held ~the
proximate cause Of the accident for
Which it would be liable to answer in
damages. Arnrmed Lovely, J.
Passengers Must Be Careful.
Minnie Benedict, as Administrative of
the Estate of George Benedict Deceas-
ed, appellant, VS.. Minneapolis & ST
Louis r. r. Co., respondent.
Whlle 1t is the absolute duty OF a
railway carrier Of passengers to provide
a safe and secure place for it's patrons to
ride within its car when such duty is
performed the passenger has no right to
voluntarily extend his person beyond the
line of moving car or ride upon It's
platform, and if he does SO and injury
follows. no recovery can be had therefor
2. Where a carrier of passengers bv
steam permits it's cars to be overcrowded
and requires its passengers to ride on
the platforms, it cannot excuse itself for
injuries from such cause, but if a pas
Senger while riding on the platform neg
hgertly extends his person beyond the
car line from curiosity, his act in that
respect must be regarded as negligent as
a matter of law.
g. A youth of sixteen years of age
travelling alone cannot be held merely on
account of his imma ture years to have
been incapable in law of exercising suffi-
cient discretion and judgment to avoid
mourning the risk of a voluntary expos
ure Of his person beyond the sides of a
moving train.
4. In the review of the complaint upon
general demurrer held, that certain facts
and conditions set forth therein do not
excuse the conduct of an injured party
gerce IN protruding his head beyond the