Casey v. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1913
• Citation: 142 N.W. 726,122 Minn. 474
• Parties: CASEY v. PILLSBURY FLOUR MILLS CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

122 Minn. 474

142 N.W. 726

CASEY

v.PILLSBURY FLOUR MILLS CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 18, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wm. E. Hale, Judge.

Action by Dennis D. Casey against the Pillsbury Flour Mills Company. Verdict for defendant. From denial of new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff was engaged, with others, in hoisting an electric motor from the ground through a window and into the defendant's elevator. The pulley ropes, fastened to a steel beam which projected beyond the building line, became tangled when the motor was part way up, so that the men could move it neither up nor down, and it became necessary to attach other ropes to the beam, and to the motor, dispensing with those first used. This was safely done and the men commenced lowering the motor. The men at the windlass let go the handles and the motor fell, injuring the plaintiff. It is claimed that the defendant negligently failed to use sufficient guy lines to prevent the pulley ropes before mentioned from becoming tangled. It is held that, if there was such failure, it was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.

The act of the men at the windlass is letting go the handles was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, and the court properly directed a verdict for the defendant. M. A. Jordan, of Minneapolis (Thos. Kneeland, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for appellant.

P. J. McLaughlin, of St. Paul, for respondent.

DIBELL, C.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for a personal injury sustained while in the employ of the defendant. At the close of the testimony the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was denied. This is an appeal from the order denying a new trial.

The plaintiff, with others, was engaged in hoisting an electric motor from the ground into an elevator of the defendant. A steel beam projected beyond the building line, and above the window into which the motor was to be hoisted. The tackle was attached to this beam, and was operated by a windlass on the ground below. The motor was gotten up something like 60 feet, when the pulley ropes became tangled, and the men could get the engine neither up nor down. They then attached other tackle to the steel beam, fastened it to the motor, dispensing with the tackle first used, and proceeded to lower the motor. The men at the windlass let go of the handles,...