Reiter v. Winona & St Peter Railroad
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1962, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Peterson v. Modjeski (Minn. 1962)
- Dimetre v. Red Wing Sewer Pipe Co. (Minn. 1914)
- Dobreff v. St. Paul Gaslight Co. (Minn. 1914)
- Arnold v. Dauchy (Minn. 1911)
- Walker v. Scott (Kan. 1901)
- Kreuzer v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1901)
- Kletschka v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad (Minn. 1900)
- Hill v. Winston (Minn. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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
Order reversed.
BUCK, J., absent, took no part.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.