Palmquist v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 26 December 1902 |
| Docket Number | 1382 |
| Citation | 70 P. 994,25 Utah 257 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | D. A. PALMQUIST, Respondent, v. THE MINE AND SMELTER SUPPLY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant |
Appeal from Third District Court, Salt Lake County.-- Hon. C. W Morse, Judge.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received because of the negligence of the defendant company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
AFFIRMED.
Messrs Stephens & Smith and Ashby Snow, Esq., for appellant.
Messrs Powers, Straup & Lippman, for respondent.
OPINION
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received because of the negligence of the defendant company. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, who was about thirty years of age, was, at the time of the accident which resulted in the injuries sued for, an employee of the defendant in its shipping department on West Temple street, Salt Lake City; the defendant being engaged in the business of handling mine and smelter supplies, machinery, engines, and boilers. On the morning of October 19, 1900, the plaintiff was ordered by the managing agent of the company to go to its warehouse on Fifth West street, where it kept its large boilers and heavy machinery, and assist in loading a boiler on a wagon for the purpose of hauling it to the Oregon Short Line railroad depot. One Peterson was in charge of and directed the manner of loading, and the plaintiff and another employee were to assist him. The boiler weighed six tons, and was upon a trestle alongside the warehouse. Peterson then drove a platform wagon to within ten feet of the trestle, there being a railroad track between the wagon and trestle, and, under his directions, iron rails were laid, one end of each resting on the trestle and the other end on the wagonbed, both ends being fastened, and the trestle being about six or twelve inches lower than the top of the wagonbed. Unable to move the boiler with crowbars, Peterson next fastened a rope with block and tackle around the north end of the boiler, and with a horse pulled that end onto the wagon. He next attached his tackle to the south end of the boiler to pull that end up also. As to what was then directed by Peterson, and done, the evidence is conflicting. From the testimony of the plaintiff it appears that Peterson, having attached his tackle in the south end instructed plaintiff to go behind the boiler and nail a block on the wagon to keep the boiler from slipping; that Peterson was standing by the horse, and had hold of the lines; that the block was lying between the wagon and the trestle, and to get which the plaintiff passed around the north end of the wagon, the north end of the boiler then resting on about the center of the wagon; that he stooped over to throw a crowbar off from the block for the purpose of picking up the block to nail it on the wagon; that, as he was thus stooping down, Peterson started the horse to pull the boiler on the wagon without giving any warning; and that as quick as the plaintiff heard Peterson say "Get up " he tried to jump back, but the boiler fell, and caught him, and inflicted the injuries. From the testimony of the defense it appears that when Peterson started to pull on the south end, he having blocked the north end, the plaintiff was standing beyond the south end of the boiler, and entirely out of danger; that he gave him no direction, except to watch the block, and, if it slipped, to call to him to stop the horse; that plaintiff could see the block from where he stood out of danger; that when he started up the team the boiler slipped and fell; and that he did not see the plaintiff until the boiler fell, when he was found, under the north end of it, jammed up against the trestle. The evidence shows clearly that the plaintiff was severely and permanently injured. The complaint charges negligence against the company upon two grounds: First, that proper apparatus and appliances were not provided; and, second, that Peterson started to pull the boiler without warning the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $ 10,000 damages, and, a motion for a new trial having been overruled, the defendant prosecuted this appeal.
BARTCH, J., after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant insists that the damages are excessive, and were awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice, and that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. The questions here presented have, on numerous occasions, been before this court, and our uniform holding has been that, if there is any evidence to support the verdict, we are powerless to disturb it. In Braegger v. Railroad Co., 24 Utah 391, 68 P. 140, they were answered as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial