Dahl v. Valley Dredging Company
| Decision Date | 27 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,431 - (253) |
| Citation | 145 N.W. 796,125 Minn. 90 |
| Parties | O.J. DAHL v. VALLEY DREDGING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Marshall county by the father of Steinar Dahl, a minor, to recover $2,525 for personal injury received by the minor from an explosion of gasolene upon defendant's dredging machine. The answer denied any negligence on its part and alleged that the negligence of the minor or that of his parents in permitting him to be upon the premises of defendant contributed to cause the injury. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., who denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict in its favor and a jury which returned a verdict for $650 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Reversed and judgment ordered in favor of defendant.
Trespasser -- duty of owner.
1. It is the general rule that a trespasser takes his chances and must look out for himself, and that no duty rests upon the owner so to care for his property that a wrongful intermeddler shall not be exposed to danger.
Trespasser.
2. It is the duty of one who invites others to use his property to exercise ordinary care to keep it in such condition that they may do so with reasonable safety.
Rule of turntable cases.
3. The keeping of dangerous and attractive machinery, where children may be expected to come to play, exposes them to a temptation which, as to those who lack sufficient mental capacity to be conscious trespassers, is deemed equivalent to an implied invitation to play with it, and imposes a duty to use reasonable care to protect them from injury; but this rule applies only as to dangerous machinery and appliances naturally attractive to children.
Rule of turntable cases -- explosive substance.
4. Where articles in such common use as gasolene, naphtha, and kerosene are kept in a proper receptacle, at a place where it is proper for them to be, and where there is no reason to anticipate that they will be meddled with, the mere failure so to guard them that trespassing children cannot get possession of them does not, in itself, constitute actionable negligence under either the doctrine of the "turntable cases," or the rule applying to explosives.
Morton Barrows and Julius J. Olson, for appellant.
O. A Naplin, Charles Loring and G. A. Youngquist, for respondent.
In the summer of 1912, defendant was engaged in constructing a drainage ditch in the county of Marshall, and performed the work with a dredging machine operated by a gasolene engine in which naphtha was used instead of gasolene. As naphtha is less volatile than gasolene it was necessary to "prime" the engine when first starting it. For this purpose the engineer kept some naphtha in a quart coffee pot, and when necessary to start the engine, poured a small quantity into the priming hole, and then inserted a match which he lighted by means of a small strip of iron, and thereby produced a sufficient explosion to start the engine. The pot containing the naphtha, together with similar pots containing different kinds of lubricating oil, was kept upon a shelf in the engine room.
Plaintiff, who resided near the ditch, had three boys, Oscar aged 13, Inar aged 9, and Steinar aged 7, who frequently played on and about the dredge, although repeatedly forbidden by their parents to do so. They had seen the manner in which the engineer started the engine, but knew nothing about naphtha or its properties. On the day of the accident, which was Sunday, plaintiff and his wife went berrying and left the boys at home. The dredge did not operate on Sunday, but the crew were cleaning it. At the time of the accident they had gone to dinner and none of them were present. The boys went upon the dredge. After playing about it for some time, Oscar, the oldest, procured a match from a box in the engine room and found some waste which he put upon a plank at the front end of the dredge and set on fire. He then sent Inar, the second boy, for the can of naphtha. Inar brought it and gave it to Oscar. With the three standing about the burning or smouldering waste, Oscar poured some naphtha upon it which instantly blazed up, set the naphtha in the pot on fire, and burned the boys badly. Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of the youngest boy, Steinar, to recover damages for the injuries so sustained. The verdict was for the plaintiff. An alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was made and denied and defendant appealed.
It is a general rule that a trespasser takes his chances and must look out for himself; and that no duty rests upon the owner to keep his property in such condition or so guarded that a wrongful intermeddler shall not be exposed to danger. But if the owner invite others upon his premises, or to make use of his property, the law imposes upon him the duty of exercising ordinary care to keep the premises or the property in such condition that those who act upon his invitation may do so with reasonable safety. The owner of dangerous machinery located where he has reason to expect children to come for purposes of amusement, and of a character which he ought to anticipate would attract them into playing with or about it, exposes them to such temptation that, as to those children who lack sufficient mental capacity to be conscious trespassers, it is deemed equivalent to an implied invitation to amuse themselves, and imposes upon such owner the duty to use reasonable care to protect them from injury.
This rule, commonly known as the doctrine of the "turntable cases," is an exception to the general rule that a property-owner owes no duty to a trespasser except to avoid wanton injury to him; and is recognized and approved by the majority of courts but is disapproved by several. See Wheeling & L.E.R. Co. v. Harvey, 77 Oh. St. 235, 83 N.E. 66, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 113, 122 Am. St. 503, 11 Ann. Cas. 981, and Thompson v. Baltimore & O. Ry. Co., ] and cases cited in note appended thereto in 11 Ann. Cas. 894. The rule was first adopted in this state in Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. 21 Minn. 207, 18 Am. Rep. 393, where a young child was injured in a turntable, and has frequently been recognized and applied in subsequent cases. O'Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. 43 Minn. 289, 45 N.W. 440; Gunderson v. Northwestern Ele. Co. 47 Minn. 161, 49 N.W. 694; Decker v. Itasca Paper Co. 111 Minn. 439, 440, 127 N.W. 183; Berg v. B.B. Fuel Co. 122 Minn. 323, 142 N.W. 321.
This court has always confined the doctrine within narrow limits and has refused to extend it to cases not...
To continue reading
Request your trial