Jacobson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 01 August 1902 |
| Docket Number | 13,014 - (144) |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 465,87 Minn. 185 |
| Parties | ANNIE JACOBSON v. JOHN R. JOHNSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of Mons E. Jacobson, deceased to recover $5,000 for the death of decedent. The case was tried before Harrison, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Master and Servant -- Safe Appliances.
The rule laid down by this and other courts, that it is the duty of the master to use reasonable care to provide safe appliances for the use and protection of employees in his service, recognized and applied to the facts of this case.
Dangerous Appliance -- Opinion of Expert.
Where an employee is required to work upon and about dangerous instrumentalities, the master cannot shield himself from liability for injury caused from a neglect of this duty by reliance upon the opinion of an expert as to the safety of an appliance provided by him, when it does not appear that the examination of such expert was thorough and efficient, which is a question of fact for the jury.
Verdict -- Evidence.
Evidence considered, and held sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury that an employer failed to provide reasonably safe guy rods or stays to support a heavy iron crane, by reason of which neglect the stays broke, whereby the crane fell upon an employee while engaged in the master's service, at his proper place, in the line of his duty.
Trafford N. Jayne and Henry C. Belden, for appellant.
Benton & Molyneaux, for respondent.
The widow of Mons Jacobson brings this action as administratrix to recover damages sustained through the death of her husband from the alleged negligence of defendant. She had a verdict. Defendant moved for a new trial or judgment in the alternative, which was denied. From this order defendant appeals.
There are twenty-eight assignments of error. A careful examination of these assignments, upon a review of the entire record, leads to the conclusion that the only question worthy of consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. This is one of the instances where counsel has deemed it important to require this court to examine every exception in the record, and, as is usual in such cases, the imposition of much unnecessary labor upon the court fails to realize the result that it has been profitable to appellant.
It was reasonably made to appear by the evidence that defendant was at the time of the accident the owner of and operating a dredge boat on Lake Minnetonka, used in the work of dredging and pulling piles. Plaintiff's intestate was one of the deck hands on the boat. An instrumentality in this work was a heavy iron crane weighing four thousand pounds, extending from the deck of the boat to an angle into the air. At its exterior was suspended a dipper and other appliances for the work. The crane was held in place at the requisite angle by means of two guy rods of iron attached to either side. These rods were stationary, they kept the crane suspended, and prevented it from falling. Plaintiff's intestate at the time of the accident was at work at his proper place on the deck of the boat. The crane and its appliances were operated by means of an engine, when, under the effect of some severe strain produced by use of the crane or engine, the guy rods both broke, when the crane fell upon plaintiff's husband, inflicting such injuries that he died therefrom.
The dredge boat had been constructed by defendant two years before the accident. The engine and boiler had been purchased from secondhand dealers of machinery. The guy rods had been in use on the steamer City of St. Louis, on Lake Minnetonka as braces, or what are called "hog chains," for the period of eighteen years, and when that boat was broken up these rods were taken therefrom and adapted to the purpose of stays, as above stated, by defendant, who personally possessed no special...
To continue reading
Request your trial