Anderson v. Minn. & N. W. R. Co.

Decision Date21 December 1888
Citation39 Minn. 523,41 N.W. 104
PartiesANDERSON v MINNESOTA & N. W. R. CO.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Action for damages resulting from the alleged defective condition of a hand car upon which plaintiff worked as an employe of the defendant.

2. In determining the question of reasonable care on the part of the master in such cases, regard must be had to the risks and dangers attending the use of the instrumentality furnished the servant in his employment; and the obligation of the the former, as respects due care, extends as well to the matter of inspection and repair as to furnishing.

3. The servant is also bound to exercise care on his part to avoid danger and accident commensurate with the risks to which he is subjected in his employment; and such defects in an instrument which he is frequently using as are obvious to the senses, or with reasonable diligence ought to be discovered or known by him, he will be held to take the risk of.

4. The evidence in the case fully examined and considered, and held to sustain the verdict in plaintiff's favor upon the issues of defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence.

GILFILLAN, C. J., and MITCHELL, J., dissenting.

Appeal from district court, Dodge county; BUCKHAM, Judge.

Action for damages by C. S. Anderson against Minnesota & Northwestern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Lusk & Bunn, for appellant.

Geo. B. Edgerton and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

A new trial was asked for by defendant on the ground that the verdict in plaintiff's favor was not justified by the evidence, and the refusal of the trial court to grant the application is the ground of this appeal. The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, and was one of a gang of section-men, seven or eight in number, including their foreman. They had charge of a hand car, which they used in their business to transport themselves and their tools to and from different points on the section of the railroad upon which they worked. At the time of the injury complained of, they were returning on the car from their work, and then men were all engaged in operating it,-three on one side, and four, including the plaintiff, on the other. The car was moving up grade, and against the wind, and it required vigorous exertion to drive it forward. While so working under the direction of the foreman, that portion of the wooden handle which plaintiff held parted at the iron clasp or ring through which it was passed to work the levers in operating the car, and he was suddenly precipitated forward on the track, and was run over and seriously injured, and he now seeks to recover damages against the defendant for its alleged negligence in not providing a safer instrument to work with.

1. The evidence tends to prove that the handle was too weak for the strain required and put upon it, and the use to which it was applied. There was a knot in the wood at or very near the place where it broke, which caused a deflection in the grain of the wood under the clasp, which some of the witnesses testify was a defeat in the handle which weakened it. It was fastened in the clasps or bands at the ends of the iron levers by screws or nails passing through into the wood. This handle, it appears, had been so fastened a second time, and there was under the band a second nail-hole, well worn, extending through the wood at the place where it broke, which the jury might also find tended to weaken the handle at that point. In such cases, in determining the question of reasonable care, regard must be had to the particular use to which the instrumentality...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Holloway
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 31 Marzo 1902
    ... ... Manufacturing Co. v. Erickson, 55 F. 943, 946, 5 ... C.C.A. 341, 344; Fordyce v. Edwards, 60 Ark. 438, ... 442, 30 S.W. 758; Anderson v. Railway Co., 39 Minn ... 523, 41 N.W. 104; Railroad Co. v. Leverett, 48 Ark ... 347, 3 S.W. 50, 3 Am.St.Rep. 230; Wormell v. Railroad ... ...
  • Bell v. Lang
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • 17 Mayo 1901
    ...86 N.W. 95 83 Minn. 228 HENRY BELL v. ROBERT A. LANG Nos. 12,543 - (93)Supreme Court of MinnesotaMay 17, 1901 ...           Action ... in the district ... Kelly v. Erie Tel. & Tel. Co., 34 ... Minn. 321, 25 N.W. 706; Steen v. St. Paul & D.R ... Co., 37 Minn. 310, 34 N.W. 113; Anderson v ... Minnesota & N.W.R. Co., 39 Minn. 523, 41 N.W. 104; ... Sather v. Ness, 44 Minn. 443, 46 N.W. 909 ...          This ... case is ... ...
  • Fordyce v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1895
    ... ... shop track." 48 Ark. 374. The servant is not bound to ... search for latent defects. 33 Mich. 133; 23 Minn. 137; 11 ... Mo.App. 203; Wood, Mast. & Serv. 276; 54 Ark. 389; 56 id ...          3 ... Instruction six and seven; asked by defendant, ... R. Co. v ... Leverett, 48 Ark. 333, 3 S.W. 50; Wormell ... v. Railroad Co. 79 Me. 397; Way v ... Railroad Co. 40 Iowa 341; Anderson v ... Railway Co. 39 Minn. 523, S.C. 41 N.W. 104; ... Batterson v. Railway, 53 Mich. 125, S.C. 18 ... N.W. 584; Illick v. Railway Co. 67 Mich ... ...
  • Fordyce v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 20 Abril 1895
    ... ... Railway Co. v. Leverett, 48 Ark. 347, 3 S. W. 50; Wormell v. Railroad Co., 79 Me. 405, 10 Atl. 49; Way v. Railroad Co., 40 Iowa, 341; Anderson v. Railway Co., 39 Minn. 523, 41 N. W. 104; Batterson v. Railway Co., 53 Mich. 125, 18 N. W. 584; Illick v. Railway Co., 67 Mich. 639, 35 N. W. 708; ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT