Denchfield v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1911 |
| Docket Number | 16,891 - (214) |
| Citation | 130 N.W. 551,114 Minn. 58 |
| Parties | ALBERT E. DENCHFIELD v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Red Lake county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries, incurred while employed by defendant in loading coal into defendant's locomotive tender from a coal elevator. The complaint alleged defendant failed to supply plaintiff with safe and suitable means and appliances wherewith to perform his work, and failed to keep the appliances provided in such condition that the same were safe for the performance of the work, all of which defendant knew and of which plaintiff was ignorant because he was inexperienced in the work. The facts are stated in the opinion. The answer alleged contributory negligence. The case was tried before Watts, J., who denied defendant's motion to direct a verdict in its favor, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,100. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. New trial granted, unless respondent consent that the verdict be reduced to $3,000, in which case the order appealed from is affirmed, and judgment may be entered on the verdict as thus reduced. Modified.
Evidence -- excessive damages.
In this, a personal injury action, held, that the evidence sustained the verdict of the jury, except as to the extent of damages awarded. Because the damages awarded are excessive, a new trial is directed, unless the plaintiff consents to a reduction thereof.
John L Erdall, Julius J. Olson and Charles Loring, for appellant.
Charles E. Boughton, for respondent.
The facts here involved, briefly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff, a man twenty-eight years old, without previous experience in a similar line of work, had been for two months in the employ of the defendant railway company as a wiper or helper in and about the company's roundhouse near Thief River Falls. He worked on a night crew from seven in the evening to six in the morning. As part of his work, he assisted in coaling engines. The supply of coal for this purpose was in an elevated bin, the top of which was about fifty feet high, and the lower side of the sloping bottom a little higher than the top of a locomotive tender. At the bottom of the bin was a sliding door four feet wide. Just opposite or in front of this door was a steel apron or chute, about seven feet long and four feet wide, extending out from the bin, over which, when the door of the bin was opened, the coal passed into the tender. The sides of the chute were about a foot high, and it weighed four hundred or five hundred pounds. Fastened to it, near the outer end, were cables which passed over pulleys at the top of the bin, and had counterweights attached, so the chute could be easily turned up beside the bin, when not in use, or pulled down into position when it was to be used. The end of the chute next the bin had no fixed or firm attachment to the bin, but was attached by chains at each side of the chute. These chains would permit the chute to be pulled away from the bin about a foot. Near the outer end of the chute, and to the center of the bottom, a pin a little more than two feet long was attached by a ring. This attachment permitted the pin to be turned partially around and to swing freely in every direction. When the chute was in place to deliver coal to an engine, it was supported on this pin; the unattached end of the pin resting on the sloping top of the oil box in the tender.
At eleven o'clock, on a dark night, plaintiff and another employee undertook to deliver coal to an engine which had been spotted opposite this bin. Plaintiff pulled down the chute, rested the end of the pin on the top of the oil box, and stood at the south side of the chute, steadying it. His companion slid up the door of the coal bin. This was the usual method followed in doing the work. When the coal began running down the chute, on the night in question, the end of the chute, in some manner, came down upon or against plaintiff's leg, causing a fracture below the knee and other injuries. The plaintiff had a verdict for $4,100. The defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial, and by various assignments of error questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and also certain rulings of the trial court in admitting testimony. The defendant urges that the evidence does not establish any negligence on the part of the defendant, that it does establish that the plaintiff was negligent and assumed the risk, and that the verdict is excessive.
1. The negligence charged in the complaint is a negligent failure to furnish a reasonably safe appliance; it being claimed that the coal chute, as constructed and supported, was so unstable when coal was passing down it that a person required to stand in the tender and steady the chute was exposed to unnecessary and unreasonable danger. The plaintiff testified that at the time of the accident, while he was steadying the chute "the coal kind of bounced around in this apron, there were big lumps and all kinds of dust, as far as I can remember, and it shook around in there, and it kind of shoved the chute just enough to knock the pin out and...
To continue reading
Request your trial