Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1903 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13,599 - (128).,s. 13,599 - (128). |
| Citation | 91 Minn. 91 |
| Parties | JOHN BORGERSON v. COOK STONE COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Cobb & Wheelwright, for appellant.
J. L. Dobbin and F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, while at work in a stone quarry, through the alleged negligence of defendant's foreman. He recovered a verdict. A new trial was not sought, but there was a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.
As a necessary result, under concessions of counsel on both sides, the only question we are to determine is whether there was evidence reasonably tending to support the recovery. Questions arising upon the pleadings and all orders and rulings of the court during the trial, other than its denial of the motion for judgment, need not be considered on this review; hence our disposition of this appeal depends upon the conclusion we must adopt as to the relative rights of the parties disclosed by the entire evidence.
Defendant owned a stone quarry, which had been in operation for several years, wherein there were relatively five different levels, having the same number of distinct strata of rock below the surface at varied distances from each other, and with sufficient surface on each level for employees to stand while engaged at their work. The accompanying diagram indicates the relation of these levels to each other, and the positions of the respective servants involved, and will illustrate the point of view in which the legal questions are involved:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Plaintiff was a quarryman in the service of defendant, and was injured while standing upon the bottom rock, drilling a hole in the perpendicular surface of the blue rock near the point marked "B." On the level, eleven feet above at the point marked "A," about two feet from the edge, another of defendant's servants (Nelson) was breaking a piece from a detached rock of considerable size, and weighing about two hundred pounds. This process had to be accomplished by drilling a hole in the rock, and inserting a plug therein, which was driven in with such force as to cause a break and separation of the parts, which was the usual and proper course adopted for that purpose. There was evidence to show that the rock which was broken was much nearer the outer surface of the level on which Nelson stood than others had been previously placed while such work was being done. Nelson proceeded with his work in this respect until the rock was broken, when a piece thereof flew over the side of the level on which he stood, and fell upon plaintiff, causing the injuries for which he recovered a substantial verdict.
At the time of the accident there was the usual complement of men engaged at the quarry — being twenty in number — who were placed upon the different levels by the foreman in charge of the work there conducted. Full authority had been delegated to him by the proprietor to direct and regulate the details of the business, and to supervise the same, which seems to have been essential and necessary to the successful and proper conduct and direction of the work. The plaintiff had first been put to work at the place where he was engaged in drilling by the foreman, who afterwards, without giving plaintiff any notification of the fact, put Nelson on the level above, and directed him to break the rock, as previously stated. It appears that plaintiff did not know that Nelson was placed above him, or of his position near the edge of the level on which he stood; nor was he warned of any danger from the liability of pieces of rock that were broken to fall upon him.
Two propositions are insisted upon with much ability by the counsel for defendant, viz.: First, that plaintiff assumed the risk of the negligence of other servants, from the cause which occasioned his injury; second, that if the foreman,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Pittsburg Coal Co.
...same principle the duty to warn of an expected explosion is ‘masterial.’ Carlson v. Co., 101 Minn. 446, 112 N. W. 626;Borgerson v. Cock Co., 91 Minn. 91, 97 N. W. 734;Hjelm v. Granite Co., 94 Minn. 169, 102 N. W. 384. To the same effect, see Hendrickson v. Gypsum Co. 133 Iowa, 89, 110 N. W.......
-
Jemming v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...of the ultimate object of such employment. The facts bring this case squarely within the rule as stated in Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91, 97 N. W. 734: ‘As to those who are engaged with others in the common employment or in the details of the work, the performance of such duties,......
-
Hamlin v. Lanquist & Illsley Co.
...plan, and manner of putting up the appliances had not been so delegated to any person selected by the master. In Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91, 95, 97 N. W. 734, men were placed and required to work upon different levels. To avoid obvious and necessary perils required the supervi......
-
Smith v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co.
...plaintiff was injured. The only question here presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91, 97 N. W. 734. The principles of law applicable are simple and familiar. Both the plaintiff and defendant had the right to use the stre......