Dougherty v. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Company
| Decision Date | 29 April 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,545 - (108) |
| Citation | 126 N.W. 136,110 Minn. 497 |
| Parties | MICHAEL DOUGHERTY v. MINNEAPOLIS STEEL & MACHINERY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $25,000 for personal injuries. The answer admitted the injury but denied negligence on the part of defendant. The facts are stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Simpson, J and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,292.50. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence of Master -- Proximate Cause -- Evidence.
The evidence sustains the verdict of the jury that the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of the master to furnish the requisite number of men to move a scaffold used during the erection of a building, and in failing to notify respondent of the dangers attending the moving of the scaffold by taking it apart.
Contributory Negligence -- Assumption of Risk -- Evidence.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury in finding that respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence and did not assume the risks attending the work in which he was engaged.
Bracelin & Cronin and John D. O'Brien, for appellant.
M. P. Brewer, for respondent.
Respondent was employed by appellant as a common laborer in and about the construction of a building known as a balloon warehouse. After about three weeks he was put to work at "bucking up" on the skeleton of the building, which he did for a few weeks, and a day or two before the accident was assigned to work at bucking up with a roofing gang, consisting of three men. On the day of the accident they were engaged in riveting certain iron plates, about two feet wide, on the roof of the building. One of the men, known as the "sheeter," remained on top; the bucker up stood on the scaffolding underneath, and it was his duty to punch holes through the overlapping sheets above and hold a dolly bar against the head of the rivet while the man above did the riveting; and the third man was employed to assist the riveter. It became necessary to move the scaffold, and respondent, with the assistance of one man, the third man having been called away, attempted to do so, and during the process one of the planks fell, which caused him to be thrown to the ground and injured.
This action is based on the claim that appellant was negligent in its duty in failing to furnish the requisite number of men in moving the scaffold, and in failing to warn respondent of the dangers attending it. This scaffold was underneath the roof of a lean-to and conformed to its slope. It consisted of four pine planks, ten feet long, ten or twelve inches wide, and two inches thick. Two of the planks were placed end to end slightly overlapping where they met, and held together with a bolt. The other two planks were similarly placed by the side of the first two and fastened with a bolt; but the two sets of planks were not fastened together in any way. At the upper end, and in the center, the planks rested on two iron pipes securely placed there for the purpose of supporting them, and at the lower end they rested upon a girder. To keep the scaffold from slipping from its supports, long iron bolts were projected through the ends of the planks and rested against the iron pipes and girder. The laying of each additional width of sheet roofing necessitated the moving of the scaffold sideways for a distance of two feet, and within each panel the scaffold was moved in this way seven or eight...
To continue reading
Request your trial