Meagher v. Hirt
| Citation | 232 Minn. 336,45 N.W.2d 563 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 35266,35266 |
| Parties | MEAGHER v. HIRT. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where defendant, a contractor, while removing slate boards from rooms in an old school building which was being demolished, placed five to seven slate boards 42 inches wide and 5 to 6 feet long, each slate board weighing 80 to 100 pounds, on a softwood strip crosswise over maple flooring and leaned them against the wall, the outside foot of the pile of slate boards extending out from the wall from a foot to 20 inches; and where plaintiff, a boy nine years of age, who with other children was playing in the building, seeing a piece of chalk which he wanted behind the slate boards, pulled the pile of slate boards away from the wall in such a manner as to cause the pile to tip over and fall on him causing injuries, evidence Held not to support a claim of negligence against defendant.
Phillips & Donohue, St. Cloud, for appellant.
Harry E. Burns, St. Cloud, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
Plaintiff, Thomas J. Meagher, was nine years old on April 9, 1949, when he sustained the injuries for which the jury allowed a recovery.
Defendant, Edward Hirt, is a general contractor. He had entered into a contract with the St. Cloud school district to construct a school building. The new building was to be erected on the site of an old one, which had to be razed. Under the contract, demolition of the old building could begin April 15, 1949. However, defendant was permitted to remove slate blackboards after April 8, the last day of school in the old building. On the day of the accident, some of defendant's employes were engaged in removing slate blackboards from rooms of the old building. All of the material from the razed building under the contract belonged to defendant, and some of the slate boards so removed were sold back to the school district. These slate boards, which were repurchased by the district, were 42 inches wide and 5 to 6 feet long. Each weighed 80 to 100 pounds. Slate boards of other sizes were also removed from the schoolrooms. The slate boards which were purchased by the district were placed by defendant's employes in a room convenient for removal by the employes of the district. Employes of defendant laid two strips of softwood, 1 4, crosswise over the maple flooring to prevent slipping. Five to seven slate boards were then placed on these strips and leaned against the wall. The foot of the boards extended out from the wall from a foot to 20 inches.
On the morning of the day of the accident, several boys 12 to 14 years of age were assisting the janitors in carrying books, desks, and other supplies out of the building. There were also a number of other children playing within the premises. Among them was plaintiff. He testified that he saw a piece of chalk behind the slate boards which were leaning against the wall. He wanted the chalk, but he could not get at it. He said that he did not know the blackboards were so heavy; that he tried to lift them and they fell on his leg. 'The blackboards weighed so much they started pushing me down and I tripped or something I guess and the blackboards fell on me.' On cross-examination he described what happened as follows:
'
After the accident, plaintiff was found lying under the pile of slate boards, close to its center. The edge of the pile closest to the wall was then 14 or 15 inches away from it. The slate extended almost up to plaintiff's hips. One leg was seriously injured. Plaintiff was the only person in the room when the accident happened.
Defendant claims that on the facts as above stated the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of negligence on his part; furthermore, if there was any negligence which the jury might have found under the evidence, it was not the proximate cause of the accident. The first question and probably the only one that may be necessary to consider is whether there is any evidence from which one could reasonably find that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in stacking the pile of slate boards which fell upon plaintiff. Since plaintiff does not allege or claim that there were other dangers connected with permitting children to play in the school building, defendant can be held liable only if it is shown that he did not exercise due care in stacking the boards of slate in a building where children were known to be playing. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant negligently failed to post warnings or exclude children from the premises where the injury occurred, but we do not understand his argument to be that such failure in and of itself constituted negligence. Thus, defendant can be held liable only if it is shown that his employes did not exercise due care in stacking the pile of slate boards in the building, where children were known to be playing.
Our previous decisions in cases of this kind make it clear that this duty to exercise due care to eliminate conditions on real property which are hazardous to children is the same whether the person who creates the condition is an owner or a mere occupant of the property, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Christensen
...the particular facts involved. The defense calls attention to two Minnesota cases involving trespassing children, namely, Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 45 N.W.2d 563, and Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Ry. Co., 263 Minn. 483, 117 N.W.2d 304. Those cases as we see it are in no man......
-
Hocking v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co.
...in such a case a plaintiff has the burden of proving the existence of all four conditions stated by the Restatement. Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 45 N.W.2d 563; Doren v. Northwestern Baptist Hospital Ass'n, 240 Minn. 181, 60 N.W.2d 361; Johnson v. Clement F. Sculley Const. Co., 255 Minn.......
-
Peterson v. Richfield Plaza
...It is difficult to see why a licensee should not be entitled to at least as great care as a trespasser. In Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 339, 45 N.W.2d 563, 565, we 'Our previous decisions in cases of this kind make it clear that this duty to exercise due care to eliminate conditions on r......
-
Foss v. Kincade
...standard on child trespassers, regardless of "whether the child is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser."1 Meagher ex rel. Meagher v. Hirt, 232 Minn. 336, 339, 45 N.W.2d 563, 565 (1951) (citing Restatement Torts (Tent. Draft No. 4) § 209 which was later adopted in Restatement (Second) Torts ......