Bertram v. Bemidji Brewing Company

• Decision Date: 26 September 1913
• Docket Number: 18,198 - (224)
• Citation: Bertram v. Bemidji Brewing Company, 142 N.W. 1045, 123 Minn. 76 (Minn. 1913)
• Parties: FALTIN BERTRAM v. BEMIDJI BREWING COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

142 N.W. 1045

123 Minn. 76

FALTIN BERTRAM v. BEMIDJI BREWING COMPANY

Nos. 18,198 - (224)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

September 26, 1913

Action in the district court for Beltrami county to recover $35,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant. The answer alleged that plaintiff well knew, prior to the time of the accident, the dangers incident to the operation of the machine for filling bottles, with or without the hood or protector thereon, and entered into his employment in operating the machine with that knowledge and assumed all the risks incident to it. The case was tried before Stanton, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $5,000. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Negligence of master -- unguarded bottling machine -- questions for jury.

1. Defendant operates, in connection with its brewing plant, a certain machine for bottling beer; in the operation of the machine, bottles, either from defects therein or over pressure of air, frequently explode, throwing particles of glass about the room, and thus endangering the safety of the machine operator; it is practicable to so guard or screen the machine as to protect the operator from the exploding bottles; defendant failed to provide and require to be used a proper guard, and plaintiff, an inexperienced operator, was injured by particles of glass from an exploded bottle.

2. It is held, that the complaint states a cause of action for the negligent failure of defendant to provide a proper guard for the machine; that the evidence sustains the charge of negligence in this respect, and that the questions whether plaintiff assumed the risk of operating the machine without a guard, or was guilty of contributory negligence, were issues for the jury, and that the evidence sustains the verdict.

E. E McDonald, for appellant.

John F. Gibbons, for respondent.

OPINION

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state and engaged in the brewing and sale of beer. In connection with its business it operates a bottling plant, wherein beer is bottled and prepared for sale and shipment to the trade. Plaintiff, for about a month prior to the time complained of, was in defendant's employ as a common laborer, and as such performed such work about the brewing and bottling works as he was from time to time directed by the superintendent or foreman. He was set to work at the bottling machine and was engaged in filling bottles with beer, when one of the bottles being filled exploded, from which a particle of glass struck him in the eye, totally destroying the sight thereof, and to some extent disfiguring his face. Plaintiff thereafter brought this action to recover for the injury so received, charging in his complaint that the same was caused by the negligence of defendant. At the trial a verdict was returned for plaintiff, and defendant subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court denied. Judgment was entered and defendant appealed. There was no motion for a new trial.

At the close of plaintiff's case in chief, defendant moved the court that a verdict be directed for defendant on the grounds: (1) That the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff. Again at the conclusion of the trial defendant moved for a directed verdict, and the motion was denied. The issues submitted to the jury included the questions: (1) Whether defendant was negligent in failing to provide a guard for the bottling machine; (2) whether plaintiff assumed the risk incident to working at the machine without a guard; and (3) whether he was guilty of contributory negligence. The same questions are presented to this court, and defendant urges that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, and that the evidence conclusively shows contributory negligence and assumption of risk on the part of plaintiff. Our examination of the record leads to the conclusion that neither contention is well founded.

1. The negligence charged in the complaint, and made the basis of the action, is the alleged failure of defendant to provide and require to be used a guard for the bottling machine. The complaint alleges that the machine, without a guard, is dangerous to workmen; that bottles when being filled with beer frequently explode, causing injury to employees there at work; that the explosions are caused either by over pressure or defects in the bottle or a combination of both; that defendant and its managing officers were aware of this fact that the machine could, without interference with its operation, be guarded, and employees thus protected from injury by the...