Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36255,36255 |
| Citation | 244 Minn. 1,68 N.W.2d 873 |
| Parties | Oscar AHLSTROM, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Taking the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding, whether based on negligence or on contributory negligence, should be denied unless the evidence in support of the verdict, and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, be so wholly incredible and unworthy of belief or so conclusively overcome by other uncontradicted evidence that the want of negligence or the presence of contributory negligence is so clear as to leave no room for an honest difference of opinion among reasonable men.
2. In action for personal injuries sustained when a top-heavy crate weighing 900 pounds and a two-wheel hand truck supporting the crate in a tilted position came down upon plaintiff, evidence considered and Held to permit a finding of negligence on the part of defendant's warehouse employee in leaving the crate in a tilted position on the hand truck and failing to warn plaintiff of the top-heavy nature of the crate and the danger of leaving the crate in a tilted position.
3. Evidence considered and Held, under facts and circumstances presented, that plaintiff's contributory negligence and assumption of risk presented questions of fact for the jury.
4. Evidence considered and Held not to permit a finding that defendant's warehouse employee was a loaned servant of plaintiff's employer at the time in question. Therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant's requested instructions with reference to the loaned-servant principle.
5. Admission of certain testimony offered by plaintiff over defendant's objection considered and found not to present grounds for reversal.
6. The verdict in the sum of $275,000 is excessive and a new trial is granted unless plaintiff shall consent that it be reduced to the sum of $175,000, in which event a new trial is denied.
William J. Quinn and Fordyce W. Crouch, Minneapolis, for appellant.
William H. DeParcq and Donald T. Barbeau, Minneapolis, H. O. Chommie, Thief River Falls, O. C. Adamson, II, Minneapolis, of counsel, for respondent.
This action was brought in the Hennepin county district court to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff on October 7, 1947, as the result of an accident which occurred upon the premises of defendant, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company, hereinafter called the Soo Line. At the close of all the testimony, defendant moved for a directed verdict and its motion was denied. Subsequently the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff awarding him damages in the sum of $275,000. Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was 21 years of age and lived in Thief River Falls, Minnesota. His formal education ceased at the age of 16 when he quit school while in the eighth grade. Prior to the accident he had been employed in a local creamery washing bottles and cleaning up after operations, driving a truck during the winter ice harvest, and delivering ice throughout said city. Also, he had served for two years in the navy, worked as a carpenter, and driven a dump truck and taxi cab. On August 28, 1947, he commenced work as a truck driver for the O'Hara Fuel & Transfer Company in Thief River Falls at 75 cents per hour with time and a half for overtime over 40 hours per week. His gross earnings from the date of his employment by the O'Hara company through October 7, 1947, the date of the accident, were $296.99. Prior to the accident he had never earned $500 from private employment in any given year. Plaintiff is unmarried, and although he lives with his parents, he has never contributed financially to them.
The O'Hara Fuel & Transfer Company is engaged in a general freight hauling and moving business in Thief River Falls. Since March 16, 1938, it has contracted with defendant railroad for the hauling of 'less-than-carload freight' between defendant's freight depot at Thief River Falls and defendant's consignors and consignees. On the day of the accident, plaintiff was instructed by Shorty O'Hara, a co-owner of the O'Hara company, to pick up freight at defendant's freight depot and to deliver it to consignees throught the city.
Plaintiff arrived at the Soo Line warehouse at approximately 8:30 a.m. in an International truck owned by the O'Hara company. The weather was good and there was no wind. In accordance with the custom of O'Hara drivers, plaintiff backed his truck up to freight door No. 3, which was on the west side of the warehouse, so that the endgate of the truck, which was supported in a horizontal position by chains, was 'just about' level with the warehouse floor. Plaintiff shut off the truck motor, set the brakes, and left the gears in reverse. Next, plaintiff set a steel plate, which was four feet long, three feet wide, and one-quarter of an inch thick, between the warehouse floor and the endgate of the truck so that it extended from the rear edge of the van of the truck to the warehouse floor surface. This entire procedure was observed by defendant's employee, Pete Amundson, who had worked in the warehouse as a foreman, a trucker, and a freight checker since 1918.
After emplacing the steel plate, plaintiff proceeded to the warehouse cashier's office where he received three copies of the freight bills listing freight to be delivered that day. Plaintiff sorted these according to the addressees, and after returning to the freight house area, he gave one copy to Pete Amundson, the freight checker. Although plaintiff testified that he usually signed all receipts for the day before loading the truck, it appears that on the day in question he did not sign the freight bills until after loading in accordance with the general practice among truck drivers by reason of the fact that the signed bills constituted receipts for freight supponsedly received by the trucking company. 1 At the time in question Pete Amundson was working alone since three other warehouse employees had left the warehouse temporarily to view the scene of a nearby train derailment.
The hauling contract between the Soo Line and the O'Hara company provided:
'(a) * * * All loading and unloading of such freight shall be done by the Contractor at the Contractor's sole expense.'
'* * ** *
'Independant Contractor
'(b) The Contractor shall employ and direct all persons performing any service hereunder and such persons shall be and remain the sole employes of and subject to the control and direction of the Contractor and not the employes or subject to the direction and control of the Railroad Company, it being the intention of the parties hereto that the Contractor shall be and remain an independent contractor and that nothing herein contained shall be construed as inconsistent with that status.'
The Soo Line's warehouse employees customarily co-operated with the O'Hara drivers by helping to load the items of freight in the order and location designated by the O'Hara employees, and plaintiff testified that Amundson supervised and gave instructions to him regarding the work of loading the truck.
After both Amundson and plaintiff had loaded three or four articles by hand, Amundson called plaintiff's attention to a crate standing between eight to ten feet from door No. 3. This crate was 5 feet 11 3/4 inches high, 4 feet 8 inches wide, and 2 feet 5 3/4 inches thick, and it stood upright on all four corners of one of its 2-foot-5 3/4-inch-by-4-foot-8-inch sides. The freight bill listed its weight at 1,200 pounds, but investigation following the accident established that it actually weighed 900 pounds. The crate contained a large sterilizer consigned to St. Luke's Hospital in Thief River Falls. Plaintiff testified that he did not read the freight bill or have any knowledge of the crate's weight or contents before starting to move it.
On his own initiative, Amundson procured a two-wheel hand ruck from the warehouse and with plaintiff's help placed the blade of the truck under the crate. Next, at Amundson's instruction, plaintiff went to the east side of the crate, and after tipping it against the bed of the hand truck, he helped Amundson move the crate the ten feet to freight door No. 3 with the blade of the hand truck sliding on the floor. In this operation plaintiff pushed on the east side of the crate and Amundson pulled on the hand truck handles on the west side of the crate. Upon reaching the freight door, plaintiff and defendant were able to pull the crate onto the steel plate, 2 but after crossing the plate, the wheels of the hand truck slipped into a 2 and 5/16-inch crevice between the rear edge of the truck van and the edge of the tail gate. After several futile attempts at raising the crate onto the floor of the truck van, during which plaintiff first pushed on the east side of the crate and then moved around inside the van and pulled on the handles and resting arms of the hand truck, Amundson decided to go to the cashier's office for help. Plaintiff let go of the hand truck first, and then Amundson released his grip. Thus the hand truck was left with its wheels in the crevice, its blade resting on the steel plate, and the crate tilted back against the bed of the hand truck. At this point plaintiff asked Amundson if they should set the crate upright, but Amundson said 'No, it is all right.' Both men silently contemplated the position of the crate for approximately half a minute before Amundson left. Plaintiff admits that he knew the crate was a little topheavy at this time but he did not know how much and was not sure. Although two of the three Soo Line warehouse employees who originally moved the crate from a box car into the freight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Botta v. Brunner
...our obligation. Other jurisdictions have expressed substantially the same point of view. In Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. M.R. Co., 244 Minn. 1, 68 N.W.2d 873, 888 (Sup.Ct.1955), plaintiff's counsel submitted to the jury as acceptable: 'Pain and suffering and disability--pa......
-
Johnson v. Colglazier
...904; Kansas: Caylor v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 1962, 190 Kan. 261, 374 P.2d 53; Minnesota: Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & S.S.M.R. Co., 1955, 244 Minn. 1, 68 N.W.2d 873; Missouri: Faught v. Washam, Mo., 1959, 329 S.W.2d 588; North Dakota: King v. Railway Express Agency, In......
-
Faught v. Washam
...Del., 146 A.2d 394; Warren Petroleum Corp. v. Pyeatt, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W.2d 216, 218(2); Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. M. R. Co., 244 Minn. 1, 68 N.W.2d 873, 890-891(17). Consult also Wuth v. United States, D.C.Va., 161 F.Supp. 661, 663-664(3) (a court-tried case); Halla......
-
Busch v. Busch Const., Inc.
...awards for pain and suffering, and for other generally non-quantifiable compensatory awards. Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. P. & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co., 244 Minn. 1, 29, 68 N.W.2d 873, 890 (1955); 60 Mich.L.Rev. 612 (1962). In this case, the loss by Mr. Busch of his wife's future services ca......