Maries v. Jameson
| Citation | 108 N.W. 830,98 Minn. 453 |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,713 - (108) |
| Parties | GEORGE E. DE MARIES v. WESLEY J. JAMESON and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Kelly, J and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,500. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants appealed. Affirmed.
Master and Servant -- Delivery of Goods.
Action to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendants as a teamster, by the breaking of a guide rope, which was a part of a block and tackle which he was using by direction of the defendants, in unloading hay at the barn of a customer. Held, where a party directs, without further instructions, his employee to deliver goods upon the premises of another, he is not responsible for the safety of the premises or appliances of his customer.
Use of Appliances -- Test of Master's Liability.
Ownership or control of an appliance by the master is not, in all cases, the test of his liability for injury resulting to his servant by its use. As between them, all appliances, owned or in possession of another, of such a character and use as to impose the duty of inspection, which the master directs or authorizes his servant to use in the business of the master, stand upon the same footing as those actually belonging to him.
Failure to Inspect.
If the master is not in a position to safeguard his servants by an inspection of such appliances, he must refrain from giving his servants orders to use them whereby their safety will be imperiled.
Negligence -- Damages.
The evidence sustains the verdict to the effect that the defendant was guilty of negligence, and that the plaintiff did not assume the risks nor was he guilty of contributory negligence. The damages awarded are not excessive.
Davis, Kellogg & Severance, Robert E. Olds, and R. L. Kennedy, for appellants.
Thos. J. McDermott and Gideon S. Ives, for respondent.
The plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendants as a teamster, was injured by the breaking of a guide rope, which was a part of a block and tackle which he was using, by direction of the defendants, in unloading baled hay at the barn of a customer. This action is to recover damages for the injuries which he thereby sustained on the ground of the alleged negligence of the defendants in furnishing him an appliance which was not reasonably safe. The defendants denied any negligence on their part. The plaintiff had a verdict for $1,500. The defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. They claim (1) that they were not, upon the evidence, responsible in law for the condition of the appliance the defects in which caused the injury; (2) that the plaintiff assumed the risk of being injured in the manner he was injured; (3) that he was chargeable with negligence contributing to his injury; (4) that the damages awarded were excessive.
1. The evidence showed that the block and tackle was an appliance belonging to a customer of the defendants and used in his barn, known as the Lexington Stables, and that plaintiff was there injured while using the appliance in hoisting bales of hay from his wagon into the loft of the barn. The trial judge instructed the jury to the effect that the mere fact that the plaintiff was ordered to deliver hay at the Lexington Stables and that he made use of the block and tackle and was injured would not justify a verdict against the defendants. But if they found from the evidence that the defendants, by their foreman, in the course of his duty, directed the plaintiff to deliver the load of hay at the Lexington Stables, and also directed him there to make use of the block and tackle in delivering the hay the defendants were required to use ordinary care, by inspection or otherwise, to see that the appliance, including the rope, was in such reasonably safe condition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial