Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1964
• Docket Number: No. 39353,39353
• Citation: Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Co., 132 N.W.2d 814, 270 Minn. 42 (Minn. 1964)
• Parties: Orval ERICKSON, Respondent, v. VAN WEB EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant, Harold Quarstad and Arthur Quarstad, Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 814

132 N.W.2d 814

270 Minn. 42

Orval ERICKSON, Respondent, v.VAN WEB EQUIPMENT COMPANY, DefendantHarold Quarstad and Arthur Quarstad, Appellants.

No. 39353Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 31, 1964.

On Appeal from Taxation of Costs

Jan. 29, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1965.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1.Negligence is commonly defined in this state as the doing of something which an ordinarily prudent person would not do or the failure to do something which an ordinarily prudent person would do under like or similar circumstances.

2.A proximate cause is one in which is involved the idea of necessity.While proximate cause of an injury is ordinarily a question for the jury, it is not when the facts are undisputed and only one inference can be drawn from them.

3.It is the general rule that a person engaging in any employment assumes the obvious risks ordinarily incident to it.

4.Under the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in this state, a servant also assumes such extraordinary risks incident to his employment as he may knowingly and voluntarily encounter.The danger, however, must be known or plainly observable by him since the measure of his duty is that of ordinary observation.

5.Whether a servant assumed the risk of a given situation is a question for the jury unless the evidence is conclusive.

6.The record is clear that whatever plaintiff did in bringing on his injury can be attributed only to his own conduct, for which he and he alone was solely responsible, and requires the conclusion that contributory negligence and assumption of risk appear as a matter of law.

Schroeder & Nelson, Minneapolis, for appellants.

O'Brien, Ehrick & Wolf, and Michael Berens, Rochester, for respondent.

NELSON, Justice.

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages for the loss of part of the fingers of his left hand in an accident which occurred October 25, 1960, while he was using a hydraulic hoist on a farm owned by defendants Harold and Arthur Quarstad.Also named as a defendant was Van Web Equipment Company, which plaintiff claimed had designed and manufactured the hoist; but the action was dismissed as to this defendant at the close of plaintiff's testimony.

At the time of the accident plaintiff was a farmer in Pilot Mound Township, near Chatfield, Minnesota, was 39 years of age, and had farmed all of his life except for 3 years spent in the Air Force as a B-24 bomber engine mechanic.He was thus familiar with all types of the usual farm machinery and had become familiar with the use of hoists and derricks while working on the bomber engines.He had been farming on his own from 1947 until the date of the accident.

Plaintiff had known defendants Quarstad all of his life.They lived in the same vicinity and had regularly exchanged farm work and the use of equipment at cornpicking and other times.The exchange arrangement did not involve the payment of money.

On the day preceding the accident the Quarstads had helped pick corn on plaintiff's farm.On the date of the accident they had moved their equipment to their own farm for the same purpose, and at the time of the accident defendantHarold Quarstad was in the field picking corn, while his brother Clarence and plaintiff were at the elevator emptying a box of corn.The dimensions of the box in which the corn was hauled were 6 feet by 12 feet, and it was set on the top of a 4-wheel, rubber-tired farm wagon.The unloading operation required the front of the box to be lifted so that the corn would slide out a door in the rear of the box.The box was raised by means of the hydraulic hoist or jack, which the Quarstads had acquired at a farm sale in 1957 and had used continuously since then in doing exchange work with neighbors in the locality, including plaintiff.

The jack consisted basically of an A-frame with a hydraulic cylinder fastened in a vertical position from the horizontal crossbar, the overall height of the A-frame being 59 1/4 inches and the width between the outside of its legs at the base 25 inches.The top of the crossbar was 29 1/4 inches above the ground.A pulley was mounted on the top of the hydraulic cylinder, and a cable was fastened to the outer cylinder, strung through the pulley, and attached to the object to be lifted--here, the box of corn which was to be emptied into the elevator.The vertical cylinder actually consisted of two cylinders, the outer one containing hydraulic fluid and the inner containing a piston which was raised when the fluid was forced into the inner cylinder by a small hand pump attached to the exterior of the outer cylinder.The piston was released from a raised position by a mechanical valve which, when actuated, allowed the fluid to return to the outer cylinder.Raising or lowering the piston raised or lowered the pulley also.The jack had been so pumped just prior to the accident to discharge the corn into the elevator.

There is a conflict in the testimony as to who raised the box the morning the accident occurred.When the box was emptied and Clarence Quarstad was picking up corn which had spilled on the ground, plaintiff turned the release valve to lower the box.The piston, however, dropped only an inch or less.According to his testimony the plaintiff then looked at the jack to determine why it had not come down.A moment later the piston dropped and plaintiff's left hand, which was between the cable and the pulley, was drawn into the pulley and his fingers were partially severed.Plaintiff says he does not know how his hand got on or under the cable.The only explanation he appears to offer is that he must have placed it there unconsciously.There is testimony that the day before the accident the jack had been used in the same manner on plaintiff's farm for similar purposes, but he asserts that his brother operated it and that he had nothing to do with it.He also testified that he had not previously used this particular jack but had used a similar one on three or four prior occasions and had observed this jack in operation once or twice before.He claims that no one instructed him concerning its use.

It is undisputed that the jack had been used in grain and corn harvesting from the time of its purchase to the time of trial, and that this use had involved much exchange work between defendants and their neighbors, including plaintiff.Harold Quarstad testified that in his opinion the jack had been operated approximately 600 times prior to the accident and that he had not experienced any difficulty with the jack itself.He said that on one occasion when another farmer was using it the U-clamp holding the hook on the end of the cable had loosened and the hook had come off.He also indicated that occasionally when a wagon box was being lowered it would lodge on top of the bolster stakes on the wagon and that this would necessitate jarring the wagon box or raising the jack so as to place the wagon box stringers back between the bolster stakes.

Plaintiff, under cross-examination, admitted that he knew that opening the release valve would cause the piston to drop and that his hands were in no danger when he opened the valve.He refused to admit that he had put his hand under the cable.When his deposition was taken he admitted that he knew he had put his hand in a dangerous place but said that he did not intentionally put his hand under the cable.On cross-examination he said that he would not have put his hand under the cable had he been aware of what he was doing.He gave the following testimony at the end of his cross-examination:

'Q.Now, I'll ask you, up until the time you put your hand up there under the cable--

'A.I did not intentionally put my hand under the cable.

'Q.Just let me finish the question.Up until the time you put your hand up there under the cable and the pulley, there was nothing to hurt your hand?

'A.I didn't say I put my hand up under there.

'Q.But your hand was there?

'A.Yes.

'Q.And your hand didn't get hurt until you put it up there?

'A.I didn't say I put it up there.I don't know how it got there.

'Q.Now, at the time this accident happened Clarence was out behind the wagon?

'A.Yes.

'Q.And Harold Quarstad was somewhere out in the corn field?

'A.Right.'

On direct, plaintiff testified on the same point as follows:

'Q.Did you take hold of any part of this jack?

'A.Not that I recall.

'Q.Did you put your hand on the cable?

'A.I don't recall doing it.

'Q.May you have put your hand on the cable?

'A.It's possible, I just don't remember.

'Q.Did you put your hand on the piston?

'A.I don't--I just can't remember.

'Q.May you have put your hand on the piston?

'A.It's possible, yes.

'Q.You may have but you can't recall at this time exactly where your hand was?

'A.That's right.

'Q.Orval, did you at any time, while you were observing this situation, shake this cable or push the box or hit the jack in any way to loosen it?

'A.No.

'Q.Is there any question in your mind about this?

'A.No.'

With respect to handling the type of jack used on the day of the accident, plaintiff testified on cross-examination:

'Q.Well, now, Mr. Erickson, you knew how to handle this type of jack there on the day of the accident, didn't you?

'A.I thought I did.

'Q.And you didn't have to ask anybody how to handle it, did you?

'A.I didn't think I did, no.

'Q.And that was because you thought you knew how to handle it?

'A.Well, I was reasonably sure I knew how to operate it.

'Q.Well, are we to understand now that you have changed your mind about whether you knew how to operate it or not?

'A.No.

'Q.You are telling this jury that you still know how to operate it?

'A.I think I can, yes.

'Q.And that's based on your experience and knowledge of this type of equipment?

'A.Yes.

'Q.And this jack here?

'A. Jacks like that, yes.'

Two witnesses for plaintiff, neighbors of defendants, testified that they each had had one experience in the past with the piston...