Erickson v. Northwest Paper Company
| Decision Date | 30 June 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,417 - (177) |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 291,95 Minn. 356 |
| Parties | S. P. ERICKSON v. NORTHWEST PAPER COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Carlton county by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Oscar Erickson, an infant deceased, to recover $5,000 for the death of intestate. The case was tried before Ensign, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,000. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, but reducing the verdict to $1,725 defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Death by Wrongful Act.
In an action by the father of an infant son under sixteen years of age to recover for his death, resulting through the negligence of defendant to guard hazardous machinery in its pulp mill, where the evidence tended to show that the boy was caught in the disarranged belting of a shaft while the same was rapidly revolving, held:
1. That there was evidence tending to show that defendant was negligent in failing properly to guard and protect dangerous machinery in its mill, under the rule laid down in Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 431.
2. That the evidence was also sufficient to support a finding that a release of defendant's damages signed by the father of the lad while prostrated with grief and sorrow over his son's death was obtained under such circumstances as constituted a legal fraud upon his rights.
Miller & Clapp, for appellant.
Jno. Jenswold, Jr., for respondent.
[2]
This is an action by a parent to recover for the death of his son, a lad of fourteen years, resulting from injuries through the alleged failure of defendant to protect the machinery in its pulp mill at Cloquet. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and a motion for a new trial, or judgment in the alternative, which was overruled. From this order defendant appeals.
Under the view which we have reached, it is unnecessary to state at length the details of the accident whereby the boy lost his life. Suffice it to say that his employment required him to stand on a slippery platform in the pulp mill of defendant, and with a scraper clean screens at the bottom of a vat. Some eight inches above and back of the boy's head was a revolving shaft, unprotected, and without the guards required by statute. This shaft operated at the rate of about one hundred thirty revolutions per minute. A belting was run upon the shaft in order to propel a grindstone below the plank where the boy stood. While the lad was at work at the time of the injury the belt became detached, was twisted around the shaft, and fell suspended therefrom in a loop. Another operative's testimony tended to show that the intestate was standing on the plank, the flapping loop caught his arm, he was pulled upon the shaft, and received such serious injuries that he died immediately therefrom. Under proper instructions from the trial court, it was left to the jury to determine whether defendant was negligent in guarding its machinery, whereby an infant under sixteen years of age was imperiled and killed by reason of its omissions, and the verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence in this respect, under the rule laid down in Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 431, 97 N.W. 137.
The principal and troublesome question involved in this case was however, upon the claim of settlement between the contesting parties. In the answer defendant pleaded a release setting forth that for $275 defendant was acquitted of all damages by reason of the negligence complained of. The issue thus presented was met by plaintiff in reply, under the allegation that the money was received as a voluntary gratuity from defendant, to aid the father in paying the expenses of the funeral of his deceased son, and the expenses of his family in attending the same; that plaintiff accepted the donation, whereupon a paper was produced, with the accompanying verbal statement that it was a receipt for the money which was donated, and a request that plaintiff sign the same as evidence thereof, whereupon plaintiff, who was unable to read or write English, relied upon the representation thus made,...
To continue reading
Request your trial