Lundberg v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co.

Decision Date06 May 1897
Docket NumberNos. 10,414 - (44).,s. 10,414 - (44).
PartiesOLAF LUNDBERG v. SHEVLIN-CARPENTER COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

F. D. Larrabee and Lane & Nantz, for appellant.

Koon, Whelan & Bennett, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

The appellant bases his right to recover upon the proper construction to be placed upon Laws 1895, c. 173. His contention is that this chapter imposes in part upon the master or employer the same duty to his employe as the common law, and that it also declares one duty not imposed by the common law, viz. the duty "to use reasonable care * * * to direct and supervise the performance of the work in a reasonably safe and prudent manner." This is the language in part of the chapter above referred to. But this court, in the case of Soutar v. Minneapolis, supra, p. 18, the opinion in which was filed in this court at this term, held that this statute is merely declaratory of the common law and does not change the rules of law as to contributory negligence or assumption of risks by the servant, following the decision in Hess v. Adamant, 66 Minn. 79.

The plaintiff was an employe of the defendant, and, while so employed with another employe of defendant, piling lumber on a sort of carriage way, the plaintiff was injured by a load of lumber falling upon him. The lumber which they were engaged in piling was taken off from a small car that ran on rails into a dryhouse. This lumber was brought to them upon wagons by teamsters who were also employes of defendant. Samuelson was boss over Lundberg, and they had worked together for several weeks prior to the time of the injury, and also the previous summer, in that capacity. A few moments before plaintiff was injured, he and Samuelson were engaged in taking lumber from the ground and putting it into these small cars, which were then on the rails, intending to take it to the dryhouse; and while engaged in so doing two teams came up, drawing wagons loaded with lumber which they were to unload there, and which it was customary for these two men to assist in unloading. In the bottom of these wagons was a windlass or roll with a handle on the outside, so that in unloading they could take hold of it, and by rolling it the whole load of lumber would roll off from the back end of the wagon. As the two teams came up, Lundberg commenced assisting in unloading the lumber from the wagon which was first backed up in position, and he and the teamster turned the crane and rolled the lumber off from the rear of the wagon, when a chain which was bound around the load of lumber in some way got caught in something, and, while Lundberg was trying to get the chain loose, with his back towards the point where Samuelson was helping unload the other load of lumber, the latter and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Pasco v. Minneapolis Steel & Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1908
  • Pasco v. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1908
    ... ... L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn ... 311, 318, 23 N.W. 229, 53 Am. 35; Carlson v. Northwestern ... Tel. Exch. Co., 63 Minn. 428, 65 N.W. 914; Lundberg ... v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 68 Minn. 135, 70 N.W. 1078; ... O'Niel v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 27, ... 30, 82 N.W. 1086, 51 L.R.A. 532; ... ...
  • Pasco v. Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1908
    ...33 Minn. 311, 318, 23 N. W. 229, 53 Am. 35; Carlson v. Northwestern Tel. Exch. Co., 63 Minn. 428, 65 N. W. 914; Lundberg v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 68 Minn. 135, 70 N. W. 1078; O'Niel v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 27, 30, 82 N. W. 1086, 51 L. R. A. 532; Bell v. Lang, 83 Minn. 228, 86 N......
  • Hodges v. Standard Wheel Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 30, 1898
    ...Co., 68 Fed. 630;City Council v. Harris, 101 Ala. 564, 14 South. 357;Dantzler v. Iron Co. (Ala.) 14 South. 10;Lundberg v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 68 Minn. 135, 70 N. W. 1078;O'Connor v. Neal, 153 Mass. 281, 26 N. E. 857; Howard v. Bennett, 58 Law J. Q. B. 129; Wright v. Wallis, 3 Times Law R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT