Christianson v. Northwestern Compo-Board Company
| Decision Date | 19 April 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,568 - (107) |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 826,83 Minn. 25 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN C. CHRISTIANSON v. NORTHWESTERN COMPO-BOARD COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff's minor son. The case was tried before McGee, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying a new trial on condition that plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Fencing Dangerous Machinery -- G.S. 1894, § 2248.
G.S 1894, § 2248, requires that all dangerous machinery in any factory, mill, or shop be so guarded, if practicable, as to protect the workmen or employees, whether actually engaged in operating the machinery or in the discharge of any of their duties, from liability to injury therefrom.
Fencing Dangerous Machinery -- Liability for Negligence.
If the person charged with the duty of so guarding such machinery omits to do so, he is chargeable with negligence, and liable to any employee injured thereby, although he could not have reasonably anticipated injury in the precise way it actually occurred.
Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
Evidence considered, and held that it sustains the finding of the jury to the effect that the defendant was negligent in the premises, that the plaintiff was not, nor did he assume the hazard which caused his injury.
Morton Barrows, for appellant.
E. F. Hilton, for respondent.
Thomas Christianson, a minor of the age of nineteen years, for whose benefit this action is brought, and who will be designated hereafter as the plaintiff, was, on April 2, 1900, injured by coming in contact with a revolving circular saw in the defendant's factory. This action was brought to recover damages for such injuries on the ground of the defendant's negligence. The trial thereof resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000. Thereupon the defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial. The trial court made its order denying the motion for judgment, but granting a new trial, unless the plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $2,500. The defendant appealed from the order, and its contention here is that the evidence fails to establish any negligence on its part causing the injury complained of, but that it does conclusively appear therefrom that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and that he assumed the risk of injury by the saw.
There is no substantial conflict in the evidence, and it tends to establish these facts: The defendant makes in its factory at Minneapolis a composite board, the center of which is made of slats glued together. The slats are packed in bundles and trays, and sent to the slat room to be cut in equal lengths. For this purpose there are two saws in the room, -- a large circular saw, known as the "bundle saw"; and six feet therefrom a smaller one, known as the "tray saw." Between six feet therefrom a smaller one, the two there is a waste box, 30 inches high and some 22 1/2 inches from its front side to the smaller saw, known as the "hog," which is for the purpose of receiving the waste from both saws. The plaintiff was employed to operate the larger saw, and had been so employed for three days when he was injured. At that time, in the line of his duty, he gathered up some waste in his hands, and stepped around in front of the hog, and was in the act of throwing the waste into it, when he lost his balance, fell forward, striking his left arm against the smaller, or tray, saw, which was then practically unguarded, whereby he received serious personal injuries.
The plaintiff then knew the location of the tray saw, and that it was thus unguarded, as he had previously operated it for some three hours in the aggregate. It would have been practicable for the defendant to have so guarded the saw as to have prevented the accident. Other than this there was no defect in the machinery, or the room, or any of the appliances therein. The evidence also tended to show some other minor facts; among others, that another employee, a few days before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial