Anderson v. Pitt Iron Mining Company
| Decision Date | 25 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | 16,157 - (180) |
| Parties | NICK ANDERSON v. PITT IRON MINING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $30,000 for personal injuries. After the former appeal, the case was tried before Ensign, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,900. From an order denying defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Decision Followed.
The evidence being substantially the same, the decision on a former appeal is followed and applied. 103 Minn. 252.
No Errors.
The record presents no reversible errors.
Washburn Bailey & Mitchell, for appellant.
John R Heino and Theo. Hollister, for respondent.
This cause was heard on a former appeal, and is reported in 103 Minn. 252, 114 N.W. 953. On the former trial a verdict was returned for plaintiff, and defendant moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The trial court denied the motion for judgment, but granted a new trial. Defendant appealed, and insisted that on the evidence presented plaintiff could not recover, and that judgment should be ordered in its favor. The facts are fully stated in the former opinion, and need not be repeated. We there held that the evidence made a case for the jury on the issue of defendant's negligence, and the cause was remanded for a new trial. A second verdict was returned for plaintiff, and defendant again appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.
1. An examination of the record on both appeals discloses no substantial difference in the evidence, and our conclusion, as before, is that a case for the consideration of the jury was made out, and we adhere to the former decision. At the suggestion of counsel, we have carefully re-examined the question, with the result stated. The evidence tends to show that the space to be timbered was much larger than usual, and that this fact created a greater danger from falling earth to those engaged in the work of timbering. The conditions were therefore unusual, and plaintiff, as formerly held, had the right to rely upon the assurance of the captain and shift boss that it was safe.
2. The assignments of error presenting questions not involved on the former appeal do not require extended mention. The trial court correctly stated to the jury the facts necessary to entitle plaintiff to a verdict, and there was no error in refusing the special requests of defendant for they were sufficiently covered by the general charge. Nor was there any error in the instructions to the effect that, on the evidence before the court, the mining captain and shift boss were vice principals, for whose orders and directions defendant was responsible. The objection to this instruction is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial