Jacobson v. Merrill & Ring Mill Company
| Decision Date | 05 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | 15,837 - (145) |
| Citation | 119 N.W. 510,107 Minn. 74 |
| Parties | VICTOR L. JACOBSON v. MERRILL & RING MILL COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county by the guardian ad litem of plaintiff to recover $10,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in defendant's employ. The case was tried before Cant, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,500. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Injury to Infant Servant.
A boy under fifteen years of age was employed in violation of section 1804, R.L. 1905, and placed at work in a sawmill in the vicinity of dangerous machinery, which was not properly protected as required by section 1813, R.L. 1905. His work consisted of gathering lath from a table, collecting them in bundles, and placing them on the table or cradle of a nearby lath machine. When this cradle was released by a trip that came up through the floor about an inch, it could be moved forward against two saws, and the lath cut into uniform lengths. The boy, becoming tired, sat down on this cradle. Certain waste pieces of lath and damp sawdust had been allowed to accumulate on the floor near the trip. In attempting to rise, the cradle was in some way pushed forward, and the boy's arm brought in contact with the saw. Held:
1. That the employment of the boy and the failure to properly cover the machinery, in violation of the statute, made a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the employer.
Resting Was Within Scope of Employment.
2. In sitting down to rest for a short time, the boy did not depart from the scope of his employment.
Questions for Jury.
3. The questions of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were for the jury to determine.
Howard T. Abbott, for appellant.
H. W Lanners and Davis & Hollister, for respondent.
The action was for damages sustained by Victor L. Jacobson on April 19, 1906, while in the employ of the Merrill & Ring Mill Company. The appeal is from the judgment entered therein after the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict. At the time of the accident Jacobson was fourteen years and nine months old, and had been employed by the mill company without a permit from the school superintendent, as required by section 1809, R.L. 1905. His place of work was in the sawmill, where saws, shafts, pulleys, belt conveyors, and other machinery driven by steam were operated.
Jacobson was employed and put to work sorting lath which came down a sixteen-foot slide from a room overhead onto a table, from which they were gathered up, separated, and done up in bundles of fifty and then placed in a rack or kind of cradle, which formed a part of a machine which stood from seven to ten feet from the sorting table. The lath machine was operated by another boy. The cradle on which the bundles were placed was composed of two upright planks, the top ends of which were hollowed out into semicircles. The bundles of lath were laid in these hollows, and the cradle was so constructed that it could then be pushed or tipped forward, so as to bring each end of the bundle against a revolving saw, and thus cut the lath to a uniform length of thirty two inches. When not in use the saws continued to revolve, but appear to some extent to have been covered by the boards which formed the sides of the cradle or "buck." This buck was released by a trip which came up through the floor about an inch, and about which more or less rubbish had accumulated.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent (a) in employing a boy under sixteen years of age, in violation of section 1804, R.L. 1905, and (b) in failing to properly guard dangerous machinery, as required by sections 1813-1815, R.L. 1905. Upon the facts disclosed by the record the appellant was guilty of violating both of these statutes, and a case of negligence was thereby made against it which rendered it liable for any damages sustained by the boy, while in the course of his employment, of which such negligence was the proximate cause, unless he is precluded from recovering because of his own contributing negligence or having assumed the risk. Perry v. Tozer, 90 Minn. 431, 97 N.W. 137, 101 Am. St. 416; Bromberg v. Evans, 134 Iowa 38, 111 N.W. 417; Fitzgerald v. International F.T. Co., 104 Minn. 138, 116 N.W. 475.
The appellant contends that the respondent, when injured, was doing nothing for his employer, that he was not doing what he was hired and told to do, that he was doing something that he knew he ought not to do, and that the statute applies only when the boy is injured by the failure to properly guard the machine at which he is required to work. While working in the mill the respondent was engaged in a dangerous occupation within the meaning of the statute. Perry v. Tozer, supra; Fitzgerald v. International F.T. Co., supra. Of course, this machine was not designed or intended to be used by employees as a place of rest; but a careful man who employs small boys might reasonably anticipate that they might...
To continue reading
Request your trial