Bennett v. Syndicate Insurance Co.

• Citation: 39 Minn. 254
• Parties: CHARLES C. BENNETT, Administrator, <I>vs.</I> SYNDICATE INSURANCE COMPANY and others.
• Decision Date: 24 September 1888
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

39 Minn. 254

CHARLES C. BENNETT, Administrator, vs. SYNDICATE INSURANCE COMPANY and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 24, 1888.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Merrick & Merrick, for appellant.

Hart & Brewer, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for alleged negligence, resulting in the death of Gustave Brown, the plaintiff's intestate. Upon the trial, after receiving all of the testimony, a verdict for defendants was ordered by the court, although it had when plaintiff rested his case, refused a nonsuit. The facts, as shown by the evidence before us, are as follows: The St. Anthony Elevator (so called) having been destroyed by fire, July 19, 1887, its contents, when so burned, (about 800,000 bushels of wheat,) were sold to defendants, who, upon July 30th, commenced to remove the same, employing a large force of laborers, among them the deceased. The building, an immense structure, 82 feet wide and 300 in length, rested upon a rubble-stone wall of the same dimensions, averaging 13 feet in height and from 18 to 20 inches thick, also upon posts, 12 by 12 inches, placed inside the wall upon proper footings, in groups of six, an inch apart across, and four inches lengthwise of the superstructure. These groups were three feet apart one way and six the other, well braced with each other, but in no manner connected with the wall. Both posts and wall were built as a substructure only, were not designed to resist lateral pressure, but simply to hold up and sustain the great weight of grain which might be stored in the bins above. With the burning of the elevator its contents fell to the ground, about the posts, and outside, as well as inside, the wall. The overflow of grain extended many feet around, in some places buried the wall out of sight, while at the point of the accident it reached the top, although some had been taken away when the deceased commenced work. The building had burned 11 days previously; it had rained several times; large quantities of water had been poured upon the wheat and walls; men were at work night and day attempting to subdue the fire; but the condition was such that the gangs of laborers would frequently have to move to escape the heat, which would prove unbearable, and at times the wheat could not be handled. When this occurred, those moving it would work elsewhere, while other men would pour on water, and in other ways seek to render the heat less intense. This, then, was the situation during the four days that deceased was at work. The testimony shows that the defendants made no attempt to learn the actual condition of the wall. Assuming that it was safe, although it had bulged out upon one side, they wholly failed to guard against its falling when the overflow should be removed from the outside, and took no steps to avert...