Kampeen v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22911.,22911.
• Citation: 189 N.W. 123,152 Minn. 445
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: KAMPEEN v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. et al.

152 Minn. 445

189 N.W. 123

KAMPEEN

v.CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. et al.

No. 22911.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 30, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Waseca County; Arthur B. Childress, Judge.

Action by Charles Kampeen against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, John Barton Payne, as Agent, etc., and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion of last-named defendant for judgment notwithstanding verdict or a new trial, such defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment ordered for defendant.

Syllabus by the Court

The rule that a person is the best judge of his own strength and lifting capacity, and that a servant is not entitled to recover damages from his master for a strain or injury resulting from an overexertion in that respect, when the occasion presents no emergency requiring hasty action, the situation is in no way complicated and the task is plainly observable, followed and applied. In such case the servant assumes the risk. Brown, Somsen & Sawyer, of Winona, for appellant.

Spillane & Spillane, of Waseca, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

Plaintiff is in the prime of life, 45 years of age, and for the past 8 or 10 years has been in the employ of defendant in and about the railroad shops at Waseca, this state; advancing from one position to another, fire lighter, machinist's helper, and finally as electrician. He is a man of intelligence and properly performed all the duties assigned to him, some of which involved lifting and moving from place to place heavy tools, implements, and appliances connected with the shops. On the day in question he was directed by the foreman in charge to aid certain other employees of the company in loading upon a truck a large iron casting about 6 feet long by 5 or 6 inches in width and thickness, weighing around 600 pounds. In response to the order he with two or three men loaded the casting upon the truck, and it was moved to some other department for the use for which it was made. The truck was a low two-wheeled affair, about 2 feet high, and according to the evidence there was no difficulty in accomplishing the task. But plaintiff claims that in lifting the casting he strained his back, causing an injury from which he has not yet recovered. No injury of the kind was complained of at the time, or until some 10 months later, when he presented to defendant a claim for compensation. He subsequently brought this action for damages alleging as a basis thereof (1) the negligence of defendant in failing to furnish a sufficient number of men to do the work safely and without injury to any of them; and (2) negligence of his fellow servants. At the trial two special questions were submitted to the jury involving both elements of negligence so...