Ludwig v. Spicer
| Decision Date | 30 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,883 - (70) |
| Citation | 109 N.W. 832,99 Minn. 400 |
| Parties | MARTHA LUDWIG v. EUGENE D. SPICER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $15,222 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Kelly, J and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $6,222. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
The requested instruction made the basis of the thirteenth assignment of error was as follows: "If the jury find that the testimony of Emma Knoble is true, to the effect that feeding over the guard was done surreptitiously and without the knowledge of the defendant and would not have been done in his presence or in the presence of any other persons in authority, the verdict must be for the defendant."
Master and Servant.
In a personal injury action, it is held that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury to the effect that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of defendant in failing to give her, an inexperienced servant, proper instructions with reference to the dangers connected with her employment. Carlin v. Kennedy, 97 Minn. 141, 106 N.W. 340, followed and applied.
Assignments of Error.
Certain assignments considered, and held to present no reversible error.
Daniel W. Lawler and Edward Sanford, for appellant.
J. W. Pinch, for respondent.
Plaintiff was injured while at work in defendant's laundry, operating a steam mangle, and brought this action to recover damages, alleging that her injury was caused by the negligence of defendant (1) in putting her to work upon the mangle without previously instructing her of the dangers incident to its use and how safely to operate the same, and (2) that defendant was aware of the fact that the mangle was out of repair, rendering it more dangerous to the person operating it, and had promised to repair it.
She had a verdict in the court below, and defendant appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
It is urged in this court that the evidence is conclusive that plaintiff was familiar with the manner in which the mangle was ordinarily operated, that the dangers connected with its use were apparent and obvious to her senses, and that she assumed all the risks incident to her work and cannot recover.
This contention, and the further claim that the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of negligence, upon which reliance is had for recovery, may properly be disposed of together. We have considered fully the evidence presented in the record, and reach the conclusion that it made a case for the jury in both respects, and, further, that the case, upon its principal facts, cannot be distinguished from Carlin v. Kennedy, 97 Minn. 141, 106 N.W. 340. Plaintiff in that case was twenty two years of age at the time of her injury, but had had no previous experience in the operation of a machine of this kind, and was given no instructions by the defendant. Her injury resulted in part from a lack of experience and want of appreciation of the dangers surrounding her work, and in part from the failure of defendant to instruct her in respect to the manner of operating the machine, and we sustained her right of action.
In the case at bar, plaintiff was eighteen years of age, with an experience of only seventeen days in this sort of work. She was not instructed by defendant, either in respect to the proper manner of feeding articles into the mangle or in reference to the dangers incident to the operation of the machine. She had worked in the laundry the preceding seven months; but the testimony is to the effect that she knew nothing about the operation of the mangle or the dangers connected with its use, and that her work prior to the time she commenced feeding it was shaking articles preparatory to being ironed. The evidence justified the jury in finding with her upon this feature of the case, and further that the dangers connected with the use of the machine were not open or apparent to one not familiar with it and its construction.
The fact that she had been engaged seventeen days in feeding the mangle does not differentiate it from the Carlin case, nor is that fact sufficient to justify the conclusion, as a matter of law, that she understood, or ought, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have understood and appreciated, the risks and dangers of her employment. The question, on the evidence, was for the jury to determine. It is true that the mangle was supplied with a proper guard in front of the rollers, and that plaintiff's injury was caused by feeding articles into the same over the guard instead of under it. But this is not conclusive against her. She received no instructions in reference to her work, and another and more experienced girl was assisting her at the time, upon whom she had, in the absence of instructions, the right to rely. Had she been taught how to operate the mangle, and had she deliberately departed from her instructions, no recovery could be had, even though she followed the practice of the older operator. The fact that defendant did not know of the practice of feeding articles into the mangle over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial