Duchene v. Lefebvre-Deslauriers Roofing & Cornice Company
| Decision Date | 05 July 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,240 - (178) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 865,101 Minn. 473 |
| Parties | LOUIS DUCHENE v. LEFEBVRE-DESLAURIERS ROOFING & CORNICE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $5,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Orr, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,150. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Injury to Servant -- Evidence.
In an action to recover for personal injuries, the record is examined, and it is held (1) that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and (2) that no reversible errors are presented.
Keith Evans, Thompson & Fairchild, for appellant.
H. A Loughran, for respondent.
Action to recover for personal injuries, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The facts are as follows: Defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of cornice making, roofing, and general work in sheet metal. Plaintiff, a cornice maker, was in its employ and was engaged for it in putting upon the Orpheum Theater building, in St. Paul, about forty feet above the ground, a large galvanized iron sign on which the word "Orpheum" appeared in raised letters. The sign was made in four panels or sections, each about eight feet long and weighing fifty pounds, which were nailed to the timbers in the brick wall of the building and soldered together on the sides. To enable plaintiff and a fellow workman to place the sign in position, defendant borrowed from another person and furnished them for use a swinging scaffold six feet long. This was obtained on the 10th of July, 1906, and was on that day hung upon the wall of the theater building by some of defendant's employees. Plaintiff and his helper were ordered to make use of this scaffold and did so in performing this work. They partially completed it on the 12th of July, and were engaged in finishing the same on the 13th, when one of the rope attachments broke, causing the scaffold to tip, precipitating plaintiff and his helper to the ground below, a distance of forty feet, severely injuring them. The rope attachments were of manila material and seven-eighths inch in size, and were fastened at the ends of the cross-pieces upon which the ladder...
To continue reading
Request your trial