Lundberg v. Minneapolis Iron Store Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,196 - (208) |
| Parties | DAVID LUNDBERG v. MINNEAPOLIS IRON STORE COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $2,500 for personal injuries. The answer alleged plaintiff's contributory negligence. The case was tried before Hallam J., who, at the close of plaintiff's evidence granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff knew of the danger involved in the operation of the machine and assumed the risks. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Assumption of risk -- question for court.
In this, a personal injury case, it is held that the question whether the plaintiff assumed the risks of operating an unguarded wood shaper with revolving knives was, upon the undisputed evidence, one for the decision of the trial judge and that it was correctly held that the plaintiff assumed the risks.
Barton & Kay, for appellant.
Morton Barrows, for respondent.
On June 28, 1910, the plaintiff, who was thirty-two years old, was in the employ of the defendant, working in its wagon stock factory at St. Anthony Park, and while working on a wood shaper, shaping the ends of sleigh bolsters, his right hand was caught therein and so injured that it was necessary to amputate a part of his ring and little fingers. He brought this action to recover damages for his injuries, on the ground that they were caused by the negligence of the defendant in not guarding the machine. On the trial of the cause, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action, on the ground that the evidence conclusively showed that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risks and dangers incident to using the unguarded machine, and assumed the risks. The plaintiff appealed from an order of the district court of the county of Ramsey denying his motion for a new trial.
The evidence was ample to have taken the case to the jury on the question of the defendant's negligence, for it showed that it was practicable to guard the machine, and that, although a guard had been provided, which was safely lying in a box under the bolt, unknown to the plaintiff, the machine was not guarded. The question is, then, whether the evidence is conclusive that the plaintiff intelligently assumed the risks. The question may be determined by a consideration of his own testimony. The construction and operation of the machine, as testified to by him, briefly indicated, are as follows:
In the center of a table there was an iron shaft fitted with two half-moon shaped knives, which revolved with it. The machine was operated by a belt under the table, and was started and stopped by a shifting lever. The operator would stand facing the table, and take an unshaped bolster, lay it on the table, and press the end thereof against the revolving knives. The plaintiff's testimony, which was notably candid, makes it perfectly clear that he not only knew, but fully appreciated, the risks incident to operating this machine without a guard. In this connection he testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial