
    Johanna Dugan vs. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company.
    May 31, 1889.
    Railway — Negligent Blowing of Whistle — Reading.—Complaint held sufficient to show on its face that the alleged wrongful act of the defendant was the proximate cau'se of the injury complained of.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Stearns, J., presiding, overruling its demurrer to the complaint. . The complaint alleges the wrongful blowing of a locomotive whistle by one of defendant’s engineers near the crossing of First and St. Croix avenues in the city of Duluth, in violation of an ordinance of that city; that the whistle was blown “negligently,' recklessly, and wantonly with a frightful noise;” that a team of horses standing in First avenue, in charge of a driver, was so frightened by the sound as to become unmanageable and run away; and - that the plaintiff was struck and knocked down by the runaway team on St. Croix avenue, and sustained the injuries for which the action is brought.
    
      Ensign, Gash é Williams, for appellant.
    
      Edson, Warner é Hanks, for respondent.
   Vanderburgh, J.

The only question in the case is whether' the injury for which plaintiff seeks to recover is shown by the complaint to be the natural and proximate result of the alleged wrongful act of the defendant. Though it is not directly alleged that the accident was caused thereby, we think it is clearly implied, and the complaint, though subject to some criticism, is not demurrable. The proof of the facts stated would support a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. It appears that the defendant was responsible for the runaway, and that the team which was frightened .by the blowing of the locomotive whistie became unmanageable, and ran over the plaintiff on the same street, without her fault or that of the driver, who could not control it. The statement of facts shows a direct connection between the wrongful act of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff as the effect thereof. Campbell v. City of Stillwater, 32 Minn. 308, (20 N. W. Rep. 320;) Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, (23 N. W. Rep. 237;) Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469.

Order affirmed.  