Jacobson v. Hobart Iron Co.

• Citation: 103 Minn. 319
• Decision Date: 14 February 1908
• Docket Number: Nos. 15,431 - (198).,s. 15,431 - (198).
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Parties: JACOB JACOBSON v. HOBART IRON COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

103 Minn. 319

JACOB JACOBSON v. HOBART IRON COMPANY.¹

Nos. 15,431 - (198).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 14, 1908.

Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $10,350 damages for personal injuries. The case was tried before Dibell, J., and a jury which found for plaintiff in the sum of $17,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

E. C. Kennedy and Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell, for appellant.

John R. Heino and Theo. Hollister, for respondent.

START, C. J.

On May 21, 1906, the plaintiff was injured while at work in the underground iron mine of the defendant, and he brought this action to recover damages for his injuries, on the ground of the defendant's negligence. He recovered a verdict for $17,000, and the defendant appealed from an order of the district court of the county of St. Louis denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The complaint alleged several specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant — among others, that the plaintiff and another miner, known as his partner, were directed by the defendant's shift boss, in charge of the underground operations of the mine, to cut a cross-drift leading from the main drift, and that the defendant was negligent in not constructing, or permitting the construction of, an open set, consisting of two upright posts and an overreaching cap inside of the timbers of the main drift, at the point where the work of blasting for the cross-drift was to be commenced, so as to furnish greater security and to prevent the falling of the roof over the main drift by reason of the blasting, and, further, that the defendant was negligent in putting the plaintiff at work on the cross-drift without providing any rules as to the time when and the place where blasting was to be done, and without providing for giving warning to him when a blast was about to be set off by other miners in the vicinity where he was required to work. Only the last claim of negligence was submitted to the jury.

1. The defendant's first contention is that it was entitled to judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict because no negligence on its part was shown, and, further, that it was conclusively shown

by the evidence that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the danger from which he was injured.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was thirty four years old, and had worked as a miner some ten months prior to his injury, but less than a week in the defendant's mine; that the work in the mine was attended with danger, and was of a character and magnitude requiring supervision by the defendant, and the adoption of rules or regulations in setting off blasts which might endanger the safety of other miners engaged in the vicinity, so that they might be warned when a blast was about to be set off; that the defendant neglected to discharge this duty; that the plaintiff and his partner let off a blast at the point where they were working, which knocked out a post in the main drift and the cross-cap resting thereon, and the lagging or covering resting on the cap fell down, and with them the ore resting on them, and several tons of ore were also jarred loose by the blast; that while the plaintiff and his partner, by direction of the shift boss, were at work in the usual and proper way, restoring the timbers, in order to make the place safe, two other miners, designated in the record as the "Austrians," who were working at a point some two hundred feet away, set off a heavy blast, without any warning to the plaintiff and his partner, which caused the body of ore over the point where the timbers which the plaintiff and his partner were trying to replace had fallen out, to fall upon the plaintiff, whereby his back was broken.

The evidence is voluminous and somewhat complicated, and we do not discuss or analyze it, as it would serve no useful purpose. A careful consideration, however, of the record, leads us to the conclusion that there was evidence fairly tending to establish the ultimate facts we have indicated, and that the evidence was sufficient to justify the trial court in submitting the question of the defendant's negligence to the jury and to sustain their finding to the effect that the defendant was negligent. Carlson v. N. W. Telephone Exch. Co., 63 Minn. 428, 65 N. W. 914; Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91, 97 N. W. 734; Hjelm v. Western Granite Contracting Co., 94 Minn. 169, 102 N. W. 384; Carlson v. Haglin, 95 Minn. 347, 104 N. W. 297.

The defendant claims that it was entitled to an instructed verdict for the further reason that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risks incident to the work that he was doing.

It is true, as defendant's counsel suggests, that the plaintiff was engaged in making a known dangerous place safe; but he did not assume the risk of the defendant's negligence. The jury were expressly instructed that, if the ore which fell and injured the plaintiff fell because it was left in a loosened condition by the blasting done by the plaintiff and his partner, the plaintiff could not recover; and, further, the jury were, in effect,...