Larson v. Ring

• Decision Date: 02 April 1890
• Parties: EDWARD L. LARSON <I>vs.</I> MARTIN RING and others.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 88

43 Minn. 88

EDWARD L. LARSON vs. MARTIN RING and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 2, 1890.

Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county against defendants Ring & Tobin, partners, and the city of Minneapolis, to recover $5,000 for personal injuries. At the trial, before Hooker, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that about six o'clock in the evening of December 4, 1888, he was standing at the rear end of an express wagon, passing through 4th street in Minneapolis. The wagon was loaded with saloon furniture; the floor of the wagon was about three feet and four inches above the street-level, and standing on it was a mirror about five feet high. It was dark or growing dark, and as the wagon passed under a wire guy-rope, which the defendants Ring & Tobin had stretched across the street to sustain a derrick on an adjoining block, the rope caught the mirror, and, flying off from it, struck plaintiff on the head and threw him to the ground, causing the injuries complained of. The defendants introduced evidence tending to prove that the rope was more than 13 feet above the street at the place of the accident. They also introduced in evidence (the plaintiff excepting) the following ordinance of the city: "Posts may be set up on the side of the roadway opposite any derrick, for the purpose of attaching guy-lines. * * * Guy-lines attached to such posts shall be at least ten feet above the surface of the street." The court instructed the jury (the plaintiff excepting) that "it is not negligence to stretch that rope across the street unless you find that they have violated the ordinance; the mere fact that a guy-rope extended across the street was not negligence of itself — the mere stretching of a guy-rope across the street," and that if the rope was more than ten feet above the street at the place of the accident, the plaintiff could not recover without proof of other negligence than the mere placing of the rope across the street. The exception to the admission of evidence of custom offered by defendants is stated in the opinion. The jury found for defendants, a new trial was refused, and the plaintiff appealed.

Thomas Canty, for appellant.

E. A. Campbell and J. E. Waters, for respondents Ring & Tobin.

Robert D. Russell, for respondent the City of Minneapolis.

COLLINS, J.

Action for damages, based upon the alleged negligence of defendants Ring & Tobin, who were contractors engaged in the stone business, in stretching a guy from the top of a derrick, standing on private property, across a contiguous public thoroughfare, by which guy plaintiff claims he was swept from his wagon and injured.

1. The court erred in permitting defendants to show at what height or distance above...