Kaillen v. Northwestern Bedding Co.
| Decision Date | 12 May 1891 |
| Citation | 46 Minn. 187 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHARLES KAILLEN, an Infant, by his Guardian, <I>vs.</I> NORTHWESTERN BEDDING COMPANY. |
James E. Markham, for appellant.
Kueffner & Fauntleroy, for respondent.
We are of opinion that under the evidence the verdict of the jury must be accepted as conclusive against the contentions of the defendant that it had instructed the plaintiff in the use of the machine by which he was injured, and informed him of the risks and dangers incident to its use, and that his injury was caused by his negligently and carelessly allowing his attention to be attracted by occurrences outside the building, and looking out of the window, instead of attending to his work, while feeding the machine. The case therefore comes down to the single question whether, under the evidence, it was a question for the jury to determine whether it was negligence on part of the defendant to put the plaintiff at work on such a machine, without instructing and cautioning him as to the risks and dangers incident to its use, or, which is but another way of stating the same proposition, whether the plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary prudence, ought to have appreciated the extent of these risks, without being cautioned regarding them.
The evidence shows that when the plaintiff was put to work on the machine he was a boy aged not quite 14½ years, without any previous experience in the use of machinery, and had been operating it about two weeks before the accident. The machine was a "wool machine" or "picker," the purpose of which was to pick or tear to pieces wool used in making mattresses. It was constructed with a platform in front, at the rear of which were two small smooth wooden rollers, one immediately over the other. The space between the two at their nearest point was very small, perhaps not over one-eighth or one-sixth of an inch. These rollers were in plain sight, and, when the machine was in operation, both revolved inwardly towards the aperture between them. Immediately behind the rollers was a large cylinder, from the convex surface of which projected numerous iron spikes. The top and ends of this cylinder were covered, as was also the front, except a narrow aperture of an inch or two between the cover and the upper roller. The rear of the machine projected through a partition, so that the wool when "picked"...
To continue reading
Request your trial