Ling v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1892 |
| Citation | 50 Minn. 160 |
| Parties | CHARLES N. LING <I>vs.</I> ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The issues in this action were brought to trial on June 16, 1891. At a former trial had in June, 1890, plaintiff had a verdict for $12,000. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused on the condition that plaintiff stipulate to reduce the verdict to $4,000. This he refused to do, and an order was entered granting a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Peterson & Torgerson, for appellant.
W. E. Dodge and M. D. Grover, for respondent.
The circumstances of the injury suffered by the plaintiff, for which a recovery is sought in this action, may be thus stated in brief:
The plaintiff was in the service of the defendant, as a "boiler maker's helper," or assistant, at its repair shops at Barnesville, consisting, in part, of a machine shop, boiler shop, and blacksmith shop. Each shop was in charge of a foreman, and there was a general foreman, over the whole. A locomotive upon which repairs were being made was standing in one of these shops, over a pit provided for convenience in working under locomotives. A flue sheet was to be put in place in the front end of the fire box. It is a sheet of iron weighing about three hundred and fifty pounds. There is no uniform method of lifting the flue sheet into its proper place. It is sometimes raised by hand, but the more common way is to use the mechanical means of a pulley, a block and tackle, this being suspended or fixed in position for use wherever the circumstances may make most convenient. An ordinary and proper method is to take a hook made of five-eighths inch iron, bent in the form of an S, which is inserted in a hole in the crown sheet, (the top of the fire box,) and fastened by a rod running through the upper loop of the hook. The block or pulley is then hooked on the lower loop or bend of the S. hook. Hooks of a different shape and eye bolts are likewise used in a similar manner.
The plaintiff was called by the foreman to go from another place in the shop where he was working, to assist in raising the flue sheet into its place. He went into the fire box, and found the apparatus already adjusted for this purpose. The block had been fastened to the crown sheet by a hook. A boiler maker named Brennan was in the fire box, and two boiler makers' helpers, besides the plaintiff, were at hand. The plaintiff, standing on some planks laid across the pit under the fire box, proceeded, by means of the block and tackle, to raise the flue sheet. The hook to which the apparatus was attached broke, causing the flue sheet to fall, and thereby the plaintiff was injured. It was then discovered that the hook had been previously cracked, or broken partly through, the defect being such as would have been obvious upon examination. The sole question is whether by reason of this defect in the hook the defendant is responsible. A verdict was returned for the defendant by direction of the court.
There was little, if any, real controversy as to the facts, and the court was right in directing the verdict for the defendant. Hooks, such as were used on this occasion, and such as were commonly used for similar purposes,...
To continue reading
Request your trial