Steen v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.

• Citation: 34 N.W. 113,37 Minn. 310
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Decision Date: 27 July 1887
• Parties: STEEN v ST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

37 Minn. 310

34 N.W. 113

STEENvST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 27, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

mN.W. 113mEvidence considered as justifying findings by jury that the defendant was chargeable with neglect of duty to provide reasonably safe instrumentalities for the use of its servant, the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not chargeable with contributory negligence, or the voluntary assumption of the peculiar risk arising from the defendant's neglect; the apparatus being a pile-driver so defectively constructed that the wire rope for lifting the hammer would drop out of a pulley over which it should run, whereby it became ragged, catching the mitten of the plaintiff, and drawing his hand under the pulley.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court, St. Louis county; START, Judge presiding, refusing a new trial.

James Smith, Jr., and Ensign, Cash & Williams, for St. Paul & D. R. Co., appellant.

Edson & Warner, for Steen, respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This case has only required a careful consideration of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it justified a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. More particularly, the appeal presents the double question as to whether the case justified the conclusion that the defendant was chargeable with neglect of duty towards its employe, the plaintiff, by reason of the dangerous condition of a pile-driver, in connection with which he was at work, and whether the case warranted the further conclusion that the plaintiff was not chargeable with contributory negligence, or with having himself assumed the risks resulting from the defects shown in respect to the machinery. The evidence tended to show a state of facts, of which the following is a summary: The plaintiff was employed as a laborer, with others, to operate the pile-driver, under a foreman. When he was employed he declared to his employer, but untruly, that he was accustomed to such work. The apparatus was new, being first put in operation on the day of the plaintiff's employment, February 3d. The cable by which the hammer was raised was a three-quarter inch wire rope. This ran from the top of the structure down, and under a drum-shaped pulley, and thence to and around a revolving drum at the engine, which was in a house some 20 feet in the rear. The pulley, or drum as it may better be termed, first mentioned, had projecting flanges at the sides to prevent the rope from slipping off. There were also other appliances, not necessary to be described, intended to serve the same purpose. The drum, revolving on a horizontal axis, had also designedly a considerable, and, as it seems, too great, rotary motion upon a perpendicular axis or swivel, for the purpose of allowing a change in the direction of the line when it became necessary to change the location of the machine.

The plaintiff was stationed at one side of the pile-driver, with an iron bar, to assist in holding the structure from being drawn backward on the ice by the engine when the hammer was being raised. The apparatus being put in operation on the afternoon of February 3d, it was then discovered that, by reason of defects in the structure and adjustment of the parts, the wire rope was liable, when slack, to get out of its place under the drum, so as to require that it be put back in place. The foreman directed the laborers, including the plaintiff, to watch this, and to put it back when it came out of place. There would have been no great difficulty in overcoming this defect, and by temporary...