Anderson v. Northern Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1890
• Citation: 42 Minn. 424
• Parties: OLE A. ANDERSON <I>vs.</I> NORTHERN MILL COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 Minn. 424

OLE A. ANDERSONvs.

NORTHERN MILL COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 31, 1890.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, refusing a new trial after a trial before Hooker, J., and verdict of $500 for plaintiff.

Wilson & Van Derlip, for appellant.

Pierce, Arctander & Nickell, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries received in appellant's saw-mill. The respondent worked for one Bartlett, who had a contract with appellant to remove from the mill, and pile in its yard, all lumber as fast as the same was sawed. The sawing was done in the second story, the boards sliding down an "apron," so-called, to the main platform in the lower story as they came from the saw, while the heavy timbers came down through a slide or chute, in another place, to the same platform. The respondent's particular occupation was to assist in carrying boards from their landing-place, across the platform, to the end of the mill, where they were loaded upon cars, to be conveyed to the piling-yard. The heavy timbers came down the slide or chute at irregular intervals, sometimes in rapid succession. They were liable to come at any time, and with a momentum depending upon their size and weight. In order that the men below might have warning of their approach, which was, of course, with great rapidity, and avoid danger, appellant had adopted the precaution of signalling whenever a timber was sent down the slide, and this was usually done by a man or boy, who, standing at the head of the slide, shouted out or whistled to those at work upon the platform. At the time respondent was injured he was engaged in carrying the forward end of a board, another workman having the other end, across the platform from the foot of the apron to a car at the end of the mill. He was struck by a heavy timber, which had descended with great velocity through the slide, and without the usual warning of its approach, as he alleges, and as must have been found by the jury in order to have returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The only negligence complained of is the failure and omission of the appellant to give the customary signal to the men at work on the platform at the time the timber which caused the injury was sent down among them from the floor above. The contention of the appellant is — First, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence proximately inducing the injury, because of his...