Nelson v. St. Paul Plow Works

• Decision Date: 20 April 1894
• Parties: NELSON v. ST. PAUL PLOW WORKS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 43

58 N.W. 868

NELSON

v.ST. PAUL PLOW WORKS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 20, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1 Evidence held to justify the verdict.

2. In an action by an employé against his employer for injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the latter, in failing to furnish him safe machinery with which to work, it is not essential to a recovery that the employé should be able to show the precise nature of the defect, if it is made to appear that the accident occurred by reason of some defective condition of the machinery, chargeable to the negligence of the employer.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; John W. Willis, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Charles E. Nelson against the St. Paul Plow Works. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and a new trial denied. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was injured while operating a machine used in shaping iron plates, the upper part of which, or “drop” (so called), consisted of a heavy mass of iron with a die on the lower side, and was set in motion by a foot lever. This drop fell, unexpectedly, bruising plaintiff's hand.

Kueffner, Fauntleroy & Searles, for appellant.

Smith & Smith, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

We are of opinion that the evidence made a case for the jury, as to both defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence. If the evidence justified the jury-as we think it did-in finding that the “drop” fell because of the defective condition of the machine, and that such defective condition was chargeable to the negligence of the defendant, it was not essential to plaintiff's recovery that he should be able to show what the exact nature of the defect was. Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff knew of the previous defective condition of the machine, yet if defendant's foreman assured him (as the jury might have found) that it had been repaired, and was all right, his conduct in then going to work with the machine, if done in reasonable reliance on such assurances, did not amount to either negligence or a voluntary assumption of risks. And in view of these same assurances, and the further fact that the evidence tended to prove that if the machine had been in good order the drop would not have fallen, except by use of the foot lever, it was for the jury to say whether plaintiff was guilty of negligence in placing his fingers where they would be struck by the drop, in case it should accidentally fall by reason of some defect in the...