Bredeson v. C. A. Smith Lumber Company
| Decision Date | 15 January 1904 |
| Docket Number | 13,737 - (186) |
| Parties | JOHN BREDESON v. C. A. SMITH LUMBER COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Separate actions in the district court for Hennepin county the first by plaintiff as father of Albert Bredeson, a minor to recover $10,000 for personal injuries; the second by plaintiff in his own behalf to recover $2,000 for the loss of services of his son due to such injuries. The cases were tried together before Brooks, J., and a jury, which rendered separate verdicts in favor of plaintiff, for $3,500 in the first action and for $500 in the second. From separate orders denying a motion in each case for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, upon the condition that plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict, in the first case to $2,500, and in the second case to $300, defendant appealed. Orders affirmed.
Negligence.
Held, in actions brought by a father to recover for personal injuries received by his minor son, one for the benefit of the latter, the other on his own account, and tried together, that the jury was warranted in finding from the testimony (1) that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries; (2) that the son was not guilty of contributory negligence; and (3) that he did not assume the risk.
Verdict.
Held, further, that neither of the verdicts, as reduced by the trial court, was excessive.
Trafford N. Jayne, for appellant.
Gjertsen, Rand & Lund, for respondent
Plaintiff's son, not quite eighteen years of age, was injured while at work in defendant's sawmill, and thereupon the father brought two actions to recover damages, one on his own account and the other on behalf of the son. These actions were tried together, and the verdicts were in favor of the plaintiff; in the first case mentioned for $500, and in the second for $3,500. Defendant then moved for judgment in its favor notwithstanding these verdicts, or for a new trial in each case, and thereupon the court below ordered that new trials be had unless the plaintiff should consent to a reduction to $300 and $2,500, respectively. Consent was filed, and thereupon defendants appealed.
The young man had worked about the mill for more than one month. Seventeen days before the day of the accident he had been set at work taking boards from an edger and placing them on a trimmer. He stood at the end of the edger in a space practically three by four feet. On his right, as he stood to receive the boards, and within easy reach, was one end of the trimmer, and in it, about two feet from the other end, was a thirty-inch circular saw, partly protected, which extended about one-half its diameter above the trimmer table, and was used to cut off or trim the ends of boards after they had passed through the edger and along the trimmer table. Just in the rear, a little over four feet from the end of the edger, was a hole in the floor, through which the debris from the circular saw fell to the floor below. There was no fence or other protection about this hole, and, while there was a slide or chute for the debris extending down on one side from the trimmer to the hole, the latter was practically unguarded. While at work handling the boards, one of unusual length came through the edger, catching the young man in the side, because of its length, pushing him to the rear, one of his feet going into the hole. He fell backwards and towards the trimmer, and in trying to save himself his wrist was caught upon the saw, and the injuries in question resulted.
1. The defendant may not have been guilty of negligence in omitting to guard the saw, but surely the jury was justified in finding it negligent as to the hole into which the young man slipped. It was a dangerous place, especially to men engaged in receiving boards of various lengths from the edger -- work which made it necessary that they step backwards, more or less, depending on the length of the board in hand. Such an aperture in the floor could easily have been fenced or otherwise guarded, and G.S. 1894, section 2248, merely declarative of the common law, applies to just such cases. It was defendant's duty to protect its employees from the imminent danger of falling or stepping into the hole in the floor while at work. In case of accident in such a place the master is...
To continue reading
Request your trial