Minnesota Supreme Court, 1914

Gotschall v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad

Gotschall v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 8, 1914
125 Minn. 525; 147 N.W. 430; 1914 Minn. LEXIS 812 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. H. Bremner and F. M. Miner, for appellant., Duxbury, Conzett & Pettijohn, 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 1926, 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

Gotschall v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence in this case made the question of defendant’s negligence one of fact for the jury, and the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant. The question whether the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts disclosed by the record is disposed of by the opinion in the case of Wiles v. Great Northern Ry. Co. supra, page 348, which is followed and applied.

This action was brought by the personal representative of decedent, and the construction of the Federal statute as given by St. Louis, S. F. & T. Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 162, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, 57 L. ed. 1129, is not in point. That was an action by the individual beneficiaries and not by the administrator of the estate of the deceased. So that in the case at bar the question whether the grandmother, administratrix, or decedent’s, father, is entitled to the money recovered, if plaintiff prevails in the action, is not involved at this time.

Order affirmed.

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