Minnesota Supreme Court, 1909

Floody v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 18, 1909 · Card, Lewis

108 Minn. 216; 121 N.W. 875; 1909 Minn. LEXIS 677 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. L. Countryman, for appellant., Barton & Kay, for respondent.

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 1909, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Floody v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. (Minn. 1909)

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

Lewis, J".

TJpon the former appeal (104 Minn. 474, 116 N. W. 943) the demurrer, upon the ground.that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was sustained, for the rea*217son that it appeared from the facts stated that the derailment of the train was caused by the negligent handling of the switch by the Omaha Company, and not by reason of any fault of the Great Northern Company in the construction of the switch. In the complaint now before us the acts of the Great Northern Company with reference to the construction of the switch and the manner in which the accident was caused by reason of the defective switch are elaborated, and it fairly appears from the facts set forth that the accident was caused by the concurrent negligence of the Great Northern Company in constructing a defective switch with a rod so long that the dog would not automatically catch and hold the switch. The fact that the Omaha Company failed to take proper precautions to fasten the switch, knowing it was in the defective condition* described, does not necessarily release the Great Northern [Railway Company.

For these reasons, we agree with the trial court that the complaint states a cause of action, and the order appealed from is affirmed.

Jag card, J., dissents.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.