Froberg v. Smith

• Decision Date: 06 November 1908
• Parties: FROBERG v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

106 Minn. 72

118 N.W. 57

FROBERG

v.SMITH et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 6, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Oscar Hallam, Judge.

Action by Nels P. Froberg against Grant Smith and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff was injured by an explosion of dynamite, by the alleged negligence of the defendants, while in their employ. Verdict for the plaintiff for $8,000. Held, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, to the effect that defendants were guilty of negligence in the care of the dynamite, which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; that the trial court made no reversible errors in its instructions to the jury; and, further, that the damages are not excessive. Morton Barrows, for appellants.

John M. Cannon, James Manahan, and Jeffris & Howell, for respondent.

START, C. J.

On February 8, 1906, the plaintiff was injured by an explosion of dynamite at the camp of the defendants, who were railroad contractors engaged in construction work, upon which he was employed, at Oakland, Neb. This action was brought in the district court of the county of Ramsey to recover the damages which the plaintiff sustained by reason of his injuries, which he alleged were caused by the defendants' negligence in care of the dynamite. The answer denied that the explosion and resulting injuries were due in any manner to the negligence of the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff for $8,000, and the defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

1. The first contention of the defendants is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict in their favor, and also in denying their motion for judgment, for the reason that the plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proving that the defendants were negligent, as alleged, nor did he sustain the burden of establishing that his injury was caused by their negligence; or, in other words, that upon the record they are entitled to judgment absolute in their favor, because it discloses no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the defendants were guilty of any negligence which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. The explosion of dynamite which injured the plaintiff in this case also injured his fellow servant, John Anderson, and an action was prosecuted on his behalf against the defendants on account of his injuries sustained by the explosion. The evidentiary facts as to the negligence of the defendants and as to the proximate cause of the injury of Anderson are summarized in the opinion of this court in the case of Anderson v. Smith et al. (Minn.) 115 N. W. 748. Inasmuch as the evidence in the case at bar as to the defendants' negligence and as to the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury is practically the same as it was in the Anderson Case, reference is here made to the opinion of the court in that case for a statement of what the evidence tended to prove. It was urged in the Anderson Case that the defendants, upon the evidence, were entitled to have judgment in their favor directed for the same reasons that they urge in this case; but the court held, in effect, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury that the defendants were negligent and that it was the proximate cause of Anderson's injury. We therefore deem it unnecessary to discuss the evidence in this case, and hold that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict, to the effect that the defendants were guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and that the defendants' motion for judgment was rightly denied.

2. The defendants, in support of their motion for a new trial, urge that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury and in its refusal of requested instructions relevant to the subject of proximate cause and the effect of the negligence of Anderson, if the jury so found, on plaintiff's right to recover.

The defendants requested the trial court to instruct the jury that: ‘If you find that the fire which caused the explosion of the dynamite at the time of the accident was set through the carelessness of John Anderson in dumping the live coals which he carried out of the tent just prior to the explosion, then your verdict must be for the defendant.’ The...