Barbo v. Bassett

• Decision Date: 06 September 1886
• Citation: 29 N.W. 198,35 Minn. 485
• Parties: BARBO v BASSETT AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS, ETC.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

35 Minn. 485

29 N.W. 198

BARBOvBASSETT AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS, ETC.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 6, 1886.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Hennepin county, denying defendants' motion for a new trial in an action for damages sustained by an employe in consequence of certain dangerous machinery being left exposed.

Welch & Botkin and Nils Michelet, for respondent, Erick Barbo.

Atwater & Hill, for appellants, Joel B. Bassett and another, Copartners, etc.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The plaintiff was employed by defendants as a laborer in their saw-mill, and commenced work on the twenty-fifth day of April, 1885. His principal business was to assist in sawing slabs. He was also required to assist another employe, styled an “edger,” as occasion might require, in lifting heavy plank upon the edger's table, which was moved rapidly over rollers by means of cogs connected with the machinery of the mill. While at his ordinary work he stood with his back towards the table, and to attend to this special work he was obliged to turn, and go about six feet across a passage-way from his accustomed place of work. It required a quick movement on his part to reach and handle the plank as required. The evidence tended to show that when the plaintiff commenced work, and until about the first of June, the several sets of cogs connected with the rollers were covered with plank, but at the last date one set was uncovered, and so left till after the injury complained of, which occurred on June 7th, and was exposed from the top of the table, but covered on the sides. It also appears from the plaintiff's testimony that, being called suddenly to help move an extra-heavy plank on that day, and in attempting to reach over and pull it towards him while it was moving rapidly, his hand slipped, and was caught in the cogs and severely injured. The opening in the table where the cogs were uncovered was four or five inches square, and there is no reason why they could not have been protected, as well as the others, and in the same manner. The planks were run out from the circular saw ordinarily at the rate of two or three a minute, and had to be taken away instantly. They were of different lengths and sizes, which fact would regulate the position of the plaintiff, and the risk of danger from the cause here assigned.

The plaintiff testifies that his attention had not previously been drawn to the position of the exposed cogs, and that they were not covered when he came to the mill, because, as he says, there was no change while he was there. The evidence, however, as we have seen, shows that they were covered, but he had not noticed the change. It is obvious, we think, that many circumstances are to be taken into account in determining the question of defendants' liability in this case, and that the inferences of fact to be drawn therefrom were for the jury. Hutchinson v. Railroad Co., 32 Minn. 402; ...