Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 878,42 Minn. 520
• Parties: FRASER v RED RIVER LUMBER CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

42 Minn. 520

44 N.W. 878

FRASERvRED RIVER LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 12, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The complaint in this case held sufficient, upon demurrer, to show that the defendant was negligent in constructing a ladder or “steps” upon and as a part of one of its lumber-piles for the use of its employes in going up and down the same, and prima facie sufficient to show defendants' responsibility to plaintiff for an injury caused by the defective construction of such ladder or “steps.”

Appeal from district court, Polk county; MILLS, Judge.

Wilson & Vanderlip, for appellant.

Wm. Watts, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The questions to be determined on this appeal arise upon a demurrer to the complaint for insufficiency. The defendant is alleged to be a corporation engaged in manufacturing and selling lumber, and that by its servants it caused a pile of lumber to be constructed about 20 feet high, and in the course of its erection provided a means of ascent to the top of the pile by extending boards out from the pile in the form of steps orstairs, about 20 inches apart, and “carelessly and negligently,”at a place about 6 feet from the ground, used a board for such purpose which was weak and defective, in consequence of a knot extending across it close to the pile, so that it was wholly unfit for the purpose intended. It is further alleged that on the 27th day of November, 1888, plaintiff was employed for defendant in sorting, scaling, and measuring lumber, and that, in attempting to ascend the pile of lumber in question, in the course of his employment, and in pursuance of the orders of the defendant, he stepped upon the defective board referred to, which broke under his weight, and in consequence thereof he fell, and suffered the injuries complained of. The defendant's contention is that it appears on the face of the complaint that the negligent act complained of was that of servants in the common employment, and such as, therefore, the plaintiff took the risk of while engaged for defendant in such employment, and that, as the latter was not guilty of negligence in the selection of such employes, (which is not suggested,) it has not failed in its duty to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, bases his claim to recover upon the ground that the defendant was bound to provide safe “steps” as a way of ascent, if it provided any, for him, and that in the arrangement of the boards, for such purpose, in the manner...