Mikel v. Aaker

• Decision Date: 06 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37715,37715
• Citation: 256 Minn. 500,99 N.W.2d 76
• Parties: Fred MIKEL, Respondent, v. Sigrud AAKER, Sr., et al., Defendants. Sigrud Aaker, Jr., Respondent, Donald N. Lindgren, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 76

99 N.W.2d 76

256 Minn. 500

Fred MIKEL, Respondent, v. Sigrud AAKER, Sr., et al., Defendants Sigrud Aaker, Jr., Respondent Donald N. Lindgren, Appellant.

No. 37715.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 6, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court

1. One who supplies a chattel to another is liable to third parties for injuries caused by its use in manner for which it is supplied if supplier knows, or should realize, that it is likely to be dangerous for such use, and has no reason to believe that person to whom it is supplied will realize such danger and fails to exercise reasonable care to inform him thereof. One who supplies chattel to another who the supplier knows, or should know, will be likely, because of youth or inexperience, to use it in manner involving unreasonable risk of harm to others whom supplier should expect to be in vicinity of its use is subject to liability for any bodily harm thereby caused to them.

2. Evidence examined and held sufficient to sustain finding that owner of 30-horsepower Johnson outboard motor was negligent in loaning it to youth of 16 years, knowing latter intended to use it on boat not properly equipped for its use so that unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others in vicinity of its use might reasonably be expected to follow, and in failing to give cautionary warning or instructions relative thereto.

3. Where evidence established that youth of 16 years to whom outboard motor was loaned had had substantial experience in operation of boats with outboard motors, but does not indicate that any of such boats were improperly equipped for operation of motors thereon; and where youth testified that he was unfamiliar with operation of the outboard motor loaned to him and had never used it in manner required on the occasion of its use, Held such evidence did not compel finding that, as a matter of law, owner of motor was absolved from liability to third parties for loaning motor to youth under circumstances presented.

Phillips & Donohue, Howard I. Donohue, St. Cloud, for appellant.

Fred J. Hughes, St. Cloud, for respondent Mikel.

Atwood & Fletcher, St. Cloud, for respondent Aaker.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Action for personal injuries sustained July 17, 1956, by plaintiff, Fred Mikel, on Sauk Lake, Stearns County, when a boat in which he was seated, was rammed by a boat owned by defendant Sigrud Aaker, Sr., and operated by defendant Sigrud Aaker, J., who was then 16 years of age. The aaker boat was propelled by a 30-horsepower Johnson outboard motor owned by defendant Donald N. Lindgren, who was not present at the time of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for $8,340 against defendants Aaker, Jr., and Lindgren.

At the close of the testimony Lindgren's motion for a directed verdict based upon the ground that the evidence did not establish his negligence was denied. Subsequent to the verdict, he moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that (1) the verdict was not justified by the evidence; and (2) his motion for directed verdict should have been granted as a matter of law. He appeals from the judgment entered against him after denial of this motion.

In submitting the issue of Lindgren's negligence to the jury, the court instructed it as follows:

'* * * In this case, the chattel or article of personal property bailed by the defendant Lindgren to the defendant Sigrud Aaker, J., was a thirty horse power Johnson outboard motor. Such motor is not in and of itself a dangerous instrumentality.

'From the evidence in this case, it appears that the defendant Lindgren is charged by the plaintiff with negligence in entrusting this motor in the condition it was in when taken by the defendant Sigrud Aaker, without instructions as to its use. To find the defendant Donald Lindgren guilty of negligence in this case, you must find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that at the time this motor was loaned to the defendant Sigrud Aaker, the defendant Donald Lindgren knew said motor to be in a condition rendering it unsafe for use, or knew the defendant Sigrud Aaker to be unfamiliar with its ue, or knew him to be an unsafe person to operate said motor in its then condition, and that it was reasonably probable that injury would result to third persons by the use thereof, by said Sigrud Aaker, Jr.; or you must find by the fair preponderance of the evidence that it was known to the defendant Lindgren that the condition of the motor was such that it was not safe to use, and that it was reasonably probable that injury to third persons would result from its use.

'In other words, you must find that defendant Lindgren knew one or more of those things; or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known them, if they, in fact, existed.'

In a memorandum made a part of the order denying Lindgren's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court stated:

'Defendant Lindgren allowed the defendant Aaker to use his 30 H.P. motor, without supplying to him the steering wheel which had always been used to steer the boat and motor. Lindgren knew the boy intended to use the motor on a boat which had no steering wheel. The motor was capable of speeds up to thirty miles per hour. Defendant Aaker was sixteen years of age. As the motor was given to the Aaker boy, there was no provision made for steering the boat and motor except by the use of the motor's frame. This frame was normally used to attach the wire cables, which were a necessary part of the steering apparatus used with the steering wheel. With a steering wheel, the operator was seated in the front of the boat. However, here, defendant Aaker was compelled to run the boat and motor sitting in the...