Johnson v. Minneapolis Gen. Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1897
• Citation: 67 Minn. 141,69 N.W. 713
• Parties: JOHNSON v MINNEAPOLIS GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

67 Minn. 141

69 N.W. 713

JOHNSONvMINNEAPOLIS GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 7, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action brought to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff while in defendant's employ, it is held that, on the evidence introduced by plaintiff, it was for the jury to determine whether another employé, the superintendent of defendant's plant, was a vice principal at the time of the accident, and whether such accident resulted from the negligence of such employé.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Seagrave Smith, Judge.

Action by John G. Johnson against the Minneapolis General Electric Company. Order dismissed. From a motion granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Flannery & Cooke, for appellant.

John M. Rees, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This is a personal injury case, in which a dismissal was ordered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and then, upon motion, the court granted a new trial. The plaintiff was in defendant's employ as a laborer, his principal work being in the engine room as a “wiper.” One Wright was the chief engineer, and had charge of the men employed about the plant, usually 12 in number. In December, 1894, defendant had occasion to move some heavy iron boilers which had been stored upon its premises, and one evening Wright called plaintiff and another man from the engine room to assist in loading one of these boilers upon a truck. It was after dark, but the electric light in the vicinity gave sufficient light for the work in hand. The boiler to be loaded lay on top of others which rested upon timbers lying on the ground, was 14 feet in length, 42 inches in diameter, and was cylindrical. The truck was placed parallel with the boilers, about four feet distant, and two skids were used, one end of each being laid upon the under tier of boilers, the other ends upon the platform of the truck, the ends last mentioned being a little lower than those on the boilers; and, to control the movement of the one to be loaded, one end of a snub rope was made fast to the boilers which were to remain, and the rope itself passed around the other, and then held and managed by one of the men who was assisting the plaintiff and others in the work. There was testimony tending to show that Wright directed all of these movements. When the boiler reached its place on the platform of the truck, Wright ordered plaintiff to take away the skid nearest him at the rear of the truck, and he stepped between it and the boilers lying on the timbers, seized the skid, and threw it upon or towards these boilers. At the same time Wright ordered another man to remove the other skid, and this was done immediately. Wright then ordered plaintiff to loosen the rope where it had been fastened. He turned his back towards the truck for this purpose, and had just commenced to unfasten the rope, when the boiler rolled off the truck, struck him, and caused the injuries complained of. The truck was furnished with iron side pins, and there was an abundance of wood blocking lying on the ground, but no effort was made to block the boiler as it lay on the platform of the truck until just as it commenced to roll, and then an attempt proved unavailing. The evidence also tended to show that the ground upon which the wheels of the truck stood was solid on the side away from the boilers, while on the side nearest thereto it was soft, so that, when the boiler was on the truck, its weight caused one hind wheel to sink into the ground several inches, thus to incline the platform of the vehicle, and to facilitate the rolling in that direction, and that Wright knew of this condition of the ground. On these facts we have first to inquire if it was for the jury to determine in what capacity Wright was acting when the boiler was beingloaded. Was he a vice principal of the defendant, or was he simply a fellow servant of the plaintiff? We have stated that he was the chief engineer, having charge of all of the men at work about the plant. He was the superintendent, and had and exercised control over the establishment and the employés. He was, so far as was shown by the evidence, the sole representative...