Greer v. Great Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,190 - (173) |
| Citation | 132 N.W. 6,115 Minn. 213 |
| Parties | PHIL GREER v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Wright county to recover $35,000 for personal injuries. The complaint alleged plaintiff was twenty-five years of age, with little knowledge or experience with machinery, and was earning $52 per month at the time of the accident; that after the accident he was unable to do any kind of work, was permanently crippled and will never be able to do any work of value. The case was tried before Giddings J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $15,000. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence of master -- evidence.
The jury were justified by the evidence in finding that the defendant was guilty of negligence in failing to maintain a guard over the toggle clutch in a bull wheel, in failing to properly instruct the plaintiff in his work of operating the coal chute, and in omitting to warn him of the dangers.
Assumption of risk.
The plaintiff was not conclusively proven to have assumed the risks.
Contributory negligence.
The question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was a question for the jury.
Contributory negligence -- charge to jury.
The court did not err in instructing the jury on the question of assumption of the risks.
Opinion evidence -- question of danger.
Expert testimony was permissible on the question of the dangerous character of the machinery.
Damages.
The verdict was not excessive.
Brown Albert & Guesmer, for appellant.
F. A. Latham and C. A. Pidgeon, for respondent.
While employed in operating defendant's coal chute at Morris, Minnesota, September 24, 1909, plaintiff's hand was caught in the clutch gear on the inside of the bull wheel and his arm was torn from the socket. The complaint charged that defendant was negligent in permitting the bull wheel and clutches to be out of repair, in failing to inspect the machinery, in failing to guard the clutches, in failing to instruct the plaintiff, and in failing to warn him of the dangers connected with running the machinery. The answer pleaded the general denial, and the defense interposed at the trial was that plaintiff assumed the risk, was guilty of contributory negligence, and that the machinery was not out of order. Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $15,000. Appeal by defendant from an order overruling its motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The coal chute consisted of a platform and a room twelve by twelve feet constructed at an elevation of about forty-five feet, in connection with coal sheds and railway tracks, so that cars of coal could be drawn up on an incline at one end of the platform and unloaded into the sheds. The engine which operated the machinery was on the ground underneath the platform, and the bull wheel clutch and drum arrangement which wound up the cable was located in the elevated room. The cable passed from the drum through the shed and was attached to the cars on the track.
The bull wheel was seven feet in diameter, and was connected by cogwheels with the engine. This wheel revolved slowly, only about one revolution per minute. The drum was located at right angles to it, and the machinery was so constructed that when it was desired to haul up a car the drum was attached to the bull wheel by means of a toggle clutch arrangement. This clutch was operated by a hand wheel located at the opposite end of the drum, and by tightening it the toggle clutch arrangement drove certain friction arms into V-shaped grooves on the inside of the rim of the bull wheel; thus making the drum and bull wheel as one fixed piece of machinery. The result was that the drum wound up the cable as the bull wheel was turned by the engine. There were six of these toggle clutch arrangements, each operating in one of six different sections of the bull wheel. By releasing the hand wheel at the end of the drum, the friction arms were separated from the rim of the bull wheel, and the latter went on if the engine was in motion while the drum did not wind up.
1. In describing the accident, plaintiff testified that he was pulling a car up the incline when the clutch slipped and the car started back; that it caught, went up a ways, and again slipped. He went up a ladder at the front end of the shed, and entered the room where the drum and wheel were located, and first tightened up the hand wheel, and then went around on the opposite side of the bull wheel, and put his hand on the knuckle of a bolt in the toggle, when the clutch began to revolve and caught his hand.
It should be here stated that only one of the clutches was exposed, and this was caused by the failure to keep it covered with a guard which had been furnished for that purpose. It was into this exposed machinery that plaintiff placed his hand. Plaintiff testified that the clutch had slipped on previous occasions, and that he thought he had helped it by applying oil to the toggle bolt or knuckle. After the accident the employer put ashes and rosin into the groove between the friction arm and the rim of the bull wheel, and found that it did not slip thereafter.
The exposed clutch was an extremely dangerous piece of machinery, and the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial