Koslowski v. Thayer

• Decision Date: 06 November 1896
• Citation: 66 Minn. 150,68 N.W. 973
• Parties: KOSLOWSKI v THAYER ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

66 Minn. 150

68 N.W. 973

KOSLOWSKIvTHAYER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 6, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Held, that there was no evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the negligence of the defendants was the proximate cause of the death of plaintiff's intestate.

Appeal from district court, Benton county; D. B. Searle, Judge.

Action by Mathias Koslowski, administrator of Leo Koslowski, deceased, against P. A. Thayer and others. From a judgment for defendants notwithstanding a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J. D. Sullivan and M. D. Taylor, for appellant.

Geo. H. Reynolds, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants. At the time he was killed the deceased was working in defendants' sawmill as “feeder” of a lath machine. The negligence charged is that the defendants failed to provide a proper “dust board” in front of the saws, for the purpose of preventing missiles from flying back from the saws and striking the person engaged in feeding the machine. The particular in which it is claimed that the dust board was defective is that the lower end was allowed to swing loose, instead of being securely spiked and fastened. The theory of the plaintiff is, in substance, that a piece of lath flying back from the saws struck the dust board, causing it to swing back, and then passed on and struck the deceased. When the evidence closed the defendants moved the court to direct a verdict in their favor, which the court refused, but submitted the case to the jury. After a verdict in plaintiff's favor the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court granted. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed. After careful examination we are unable to discover any evidence that would have justified the jury in finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the negligence of the defendants. Whether or not proper care would have required the defendants to have fastened the lower end of the dust board was, under the evidence, probably a question for the jury. The evidence was also ample to justify them in finding that the death of the deceased was caused by his being struck by some missile. But these facts alone would not entitle plaintiff to recover. The burden was on him to prove (1) that the defendants were negligent in leaving the dust board swinging loose; ...