Knapp v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 16 July 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,366 - (240) |
| Parties | O.B. KNAPP v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Meeker county to recover $35,000 for personal injury received while in the employ of defendant. The case was tried before Qvale, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $12,000. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied, and its motion for a new trial was granted unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict in the sum of $2,500. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Federal Employer's Liability Act -- questions for jury.
1. In this action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act the evidence is held to make the issues of defendant's negligence, plaintiff's contributory negligence and assumption of risk for the jury and not the court.
Federal Employer's Liability Act -- proximate cause.
2. It was also for the jury to determine whether defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
Damages not excessive.
3. The damages as reduced are not so excessive as to warrant interference by this court.
M. L Countryman and A. L. Jaynes, for appellant.
John I Davis, Tom Davis and Ernest A. Michel, for respondent.
Plaintiff lost his arm while at work for defendant. He alleged defendant's negligence to be the cause of his misfortune, and recovered heavy damages. The court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but ordered a new trial unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict. Plaintiff consented and defendant appeals.
It was conceded that, when the injury was received, plaintiff as a servant of defendant was engaged in work pertaining to defendant's business of a common carrier of interstate commerce. The pleadings were amended upon the trial so as to predicate recovery under the provisions of the Federal Employer's Liability Act. Our state statute has therefore no bearing upon the issue of negligence, contributory negligence, or assumption of risk. This is fully set at rest in Seaboard Air Line v. Horton, 233 U.S. 492, 34 S.Ct. 635, 58 L.Ed. 1062. The contention is that no negligence on the part of defendant was proven; that the defendant's assumption of the risk from which he was injured conclusively appeared; that there was a failure to prove defendant's negligence the proximate cause; and that excessive damages were awarded.
Plaintiff was the station agent at Dassel, Minnesota. He also had to attend the pump-house, some distance from the station, once or twice a day, so that the water tank for the locomotives was kept filled. The water was supplied by means of a triple pump operated by a gasolene engine. The pump and engine were in a small room. The fly-wheel of the engine was about 6 feet in diameter, leaving the horizontal shaft connecting with the pump about 3 feet from the floor. Upon this shaft was the clutch by which the pump was set in motion, and between the clutch and the crank near the fly-wheel were two protruding set screws. After starting the engine, which had to be done by turning the fly-wheel, plaintiff turned down some grease cups on the pump. These cups were between the pump and the rear wall of the building. In order to throw the clutch to start the pump, plaintiff had to pass near the shaft mentioned. He was in a hurry, and claims that as he so attempted to pass he lost his balance, either through a slip upon the greasy floor or a jerk by his coat being drawn into the fly-wheel or shaft, and in striking out to catch himself his hand and part of the arm came between the crank of the shaft and top of the hood which partially, but inadequately guarded it. The crank revolved towards the top of this guard. Plaintiff says his arm was cut off so quickly that he did not know it was gone until he saw the blood spurt from the stump. The evidence is very clear that it was practicable and feasible to have guarded the set screws and crank so as to fully protect from danger those who had to pass by. We think the jury was justified in finding the defendant negligent under the common-law rule governing the duties of the master. See cases cited under 2 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, § 5895.
Under the Federal act contributory negligence does not defeat recovery, it merely serves to reduce the damages, while assumption of risk, under the facts of the case at bar, is a complete defense. For that reason plaintiff's counsel desires everything which tends toward proving assumption of risk attributed to plaintiff's negligence, and defendant's counsel is equally eager to resolve all appearance of contributory negligence into an assumption of risk.
Plaintiff had had charge of the running of the pumping outfit, not including the repairs thereon, for over eight years. He was of mature age, and, no doubt, of average...
To continue reading
Request your trial