Hedicke v. Highland Springs Co.
| Decision Date | 24 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 28637.,28637. |
| Citation | 239 N.W. 896,185 Minn. 79 |
| Parties | HEDICKE v. HIGHLAND SPRINGS CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Kenneth G. Brill, Judge.
Action by Herman Hedicke against the Highland Springs Company. Verdict for the plaintiff. From a judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
John T. Kenny and Weikert, Lohmann & Felhaber, all of St. Paul, for appellant.
Keller, Broady & Chapin, of St. Paul, for respondent.
The appeal is from the judgment. Plaintiff had a verdict; but, upon defendant's motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, the court ordered judgment for defendant.
Defendant is engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water in the city of St. Paul. Plaintiff had been in its employ some eight months previous to March 22, 1929, washing and filling bottles, loading on delivery trucks, and delivering to customers. The bottles used are one-gallon, two-gallon, and five-gallon bottles. After the bottles are washed, the one-gallon bottles are placed in crates upon a hand truck, four bottles in each crate, the two and five gallon bottles are placed one in each crate. The crates are of wood, having four upright posts, to which are nailed slats about two inches wide, one at the top, one near the bottom, and one near the middle. The bottom is of slats or boards. When the bottles are in their cases, they are filled, then trundled to the side of the delivery truck at the loading platform and loaded for delivery. In making deliveries, the filled bottles are taken out of the crate and the empty ones put in place. When the truck returns with the crates of empty bottles, the crates are unloaded and placed upon the hand truck, and the cleansing, refilling, and loading is repeated. In unloading the crates of empty bottles, plaintiff testified that the customary way was to take two crates containing two gallon bottles at one lift, one in each hand; that in doing so, shortly after the noon hour on March 22, 1929, he ran a sliver in the long finger of the left hand; that he noticed that one of the slats was loose or broken; that he stopped to pull out the sliver; and that as he tossed the crate to one side, as was the practice with defective crates, it fell to pieces. It appears that infection set in, and the evidence is clear that plaintiff was laid up for some weeks before the hand and arm could be used at all. There is a radical dispute as to whether the hand became deformed as the result of the infection, or was in that condition before. Defendant adduced medical and other testimony that the deformity was congenital. But that is unimportant on this appeal. For, even if there were no permanent injury, there was enough in loss of earnings and the pain and suffering for several weeks to preclude granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The evidence shows that these wooden crates were procured from a factory or concern in the Twin Cities engaged in the manufacture of such appliances, and were of the sort generally used for the purposes defendant used them. They may be likened to such simple containers as baskets, wooden grocery delivery boxes, and the like; ordinary simple tools, or receptacles for the convenient handling and protection of wares and products in necessary moving or transportation. A glance at these crates would disclose that the main purpose was to protect the bottles. It is common knowledge that wooden boxes and crates so used are more or less knocked about, roughing or splintering the wood. To charge an employer engaged in farming where wooden baskets are used, or in grocery or merchandise business requiring wooden delivery boxes, or in bottling works, like defendant's, with the duty of inspection so that splinters or slivers therein shall not be found, is unreasonable. To do so would virtually require the employer to become an insurer against all defects that develop in the use of a tool or appliance, however simple it might be. Reaching the conclusion that these crates were on a par with such simple tools as a hammer, shovel, and stepladder,...
To continue reading
Request your trial