Manley v. Minneapolis Paint Company
| Decision Date | 05 May 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,435 - (59) |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 1050,76 Minn. 169 |
| Parties | ERNEST R. MANLEY v. MINNEAPOLIS PAINT COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,500 damages for personal injuries. The court, Elliott, J. directed a verdict in favor of defendant; and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Master and Servant -- Negligence of Master -- Furnishing Instruction and Safe Place to Work.
Upon the undisputed evidence in this case, held, that the defendant was not negligent in failing to furnish the plaintiff a safe place in which to work, or in failing to warn and instruct him as to the safe and proper way of executing the work.
Policy of Indemnity Insurance and Defense by Insurer not Evidence of Admission of Negligence.
The fact that the master holds an indemnity policy insuring him against liability on account of injuries to his employees by his negligence, and requiring the company to defend an action against him on account of such injuries, and it does so, is not evidence tending to show an admission of negligence on the part of the insured or insurer.
Geo. D Emery, for appellant.
Keith, Evans, Thompson & Fairchild and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. The trial court, at the close of the evidence, instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The evidence tended to establish the following facts: The plaintiff is a son of the president and general manager of the defendant. He is a man of at least average capacity and education, and was 24 years old at the time he was injured. He was employed in the paint factory of the defendant as packing and shipping clerk. His duties were to pack goods and check them in and out of the warehouse, and do such other work as he might be directed by the foreman. On July 27, 1897, he was directed by the foreman to assist in unloading ocher in barrels from a car which was standing upon the track against the end of a platform, which was eight feet wide and four feet high. One side of this platform abutted against the factory. The other side was open and unguarded. A skid eighteen inches long and two feet wide, with a fall of ten inches, extended from the car to the platform, down which the barrels slid or were rolled to the platform; thence along it to the warehouse. The foreman was inside the car, and had rolled a barrel out to the edge of the skid, and called upon the plaintiff to help steady it down. The plaintiff then stepped to the barrel, and put his hands on the top and sides of it to ease it down. The barrel came down faster than he anticipated, and, to save himself from injury by the barrel running onto him, he stepped aside, but too far, and fell off the platform on the unguarded side, and was injured.
The plaintiff then knew and understood the condition of the platform and the appliances of the factory and the general method of conducting business thereat, but he did not know that it required any particular skill to handle the barrels at the place in question. The usual and safest way of handling heavy barrels upon an inclined skid is to seize the barrel at its ends by the chimb, at the same time placing the knee against it, but an ordinary person can handle it by placing his hand on top of it to prevent its coming down too fast. The plaintiff was ignorant of the usual way of handling such barrels, and he was not informed thereof by the foreman or any one else. The accident happened in the daytime. The barrel was 30 inches long, 23 1/2 inches in diameter at the largest part, and weighed 400 pounds. The foreman who was called by the plaintiff, and whose testimony is uncontradicted, testified as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial