Eckman v. Lauer

• Decision Date: 18 January 1897
• Docket Number: 10,296--(212)
• Citation: 69 N.W. 893,67 Minn. 221
• Parties: AUGUST ECKMAN v. CHARLES LAUER and Others
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

69 N.W. 893

67 Minn. 221

AUGUST ECKMAN v. CHARLES LAUER and Others

Nos. 10,296--(212)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 18, 1897

Appeal by defendants Lauer Bros. from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Otis, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Morton Barrows, for appellants.

Schoonmaker & Fleming, for respondent.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

Action to recover for injuries said to have been caused by defendants' negligence. At the trial the court dismissed the action as to defendants Roemer and Karst & Breher, and then the plaintiff had a verdict as against defendants (appellants) Lauer Bros. As the case is presented, the only question which needs elaboration is that raised by counsel's contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.

Defendant Roemer had contracted to erect a church in the city of St Paul, and plaintiff was in his employ, as a carpenter. Roemer had sublet the necessary tin work to Karst & Breher, and the stone work to Lauer Bros., reserving to himself all of the carpenter work. When the accident occurred, Lauer Bros. were completing the stone tower or steeple, and, for the purpose of raising the materials, had attached a rope to a small platform, and then run it upwards, about 30 feet, to a block hung at the top of the tower. Passing through this block, the rope when taut descended at an acute angle, and approximately parallel with the plane of the south front of the building to a stationary block upon the ground, a short distance from the foot of the tower, and about 40 feet from the upper block. The rope ran through this stationary block and to its end a horse was hitched, driven by one of Lauer Bros.' employes. When materials were to be hoisted the horse was driven away from the building, and the platform raised. The horse was backed up when the platform was to be lowered. Naturally, the rope was quite loose when the platform was upon the ground.

On the morning of the accident, defendants Karst & Breher put up a scaffold on the side of the building, the walk of which scaffold was a single plank, laid down on brackets. The east end of this plank projected east, beyond the south front of the building, so that, when that part of the rope running at an angle between the block at the top of the tower and the block on the ground was taut, it was about four feet above the plank, and from two to four feet west of the end which projected. When the platform was not in use, and resting upon the ground, the rope running between the blocks dropped loosely upon the plank, or might get underneath it, as it did just before plaintiff received his injuries. Karst & Breher's men were...