Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co.
| Citation | 90 Minn. 343 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1903 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13,572-(54).,s. 13,572-(54). |
| Parties | LARS PETERSON v. AMERICAN GRASS TWINE COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
T. A. Garrity, for appellant.
Gjertsen, Rand & Lund, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below for $400, and defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial.
The facts are as follows: Plaintiff was employed by defendant, a corporation, as a common laborer or "handy man," being assigned to no particular line of employment, but doing such work about defendant's factory as he was directed to do from time to time by its superintendent. About the time complained of, defendant had purchased and intended to install in one of its departments some molding presses. They had been delivered at the factory, and the superintendent in charge of the department had set them up, preparatory to their being moved into the factory and placed in proper position. The presses weighed three hundred sixty five pounds each, and were so constructed that, when standing detached from the floor, they were unstable and easily tipped over. A large, heavy weight, attached to the top of the press, served as a balance, and, if removed, the machine would topple over, and not stand erect. After the presses had been set up, the foreman directed plaintiff to move them to their position in the factory, and attach them to the floor. Plaintiff complied with the order, and on the day previous to the one in question successfully moved one of the presses to its position, but found the work difficult, owing to the form and shape of the press, and its weight. On the following day, in further compliance with his orders, he attempted to move another press to its place. Finding the work somewhat difficult, he removed the heavy weight attached to the top, and the press immediately fell over upon him, injuring very severely his ankle and foot.
He brought this action to recover damages, alleging in his complaint two grounds of negligence: (1) That defendant was negligent in ordering plaintiff to move the presses without assigning other servants to assist him; and (2) in not explaining to him the risks and dangers incident to handling and moving the presses, and particularly in not informing and instructing him that the removal of the weight at the top of the press would cause it to fall over. The general verdict for plaintiff is in effect a finding of negligence on the part of defendant in both respects, and the question presented to this court is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
A master is under legal obligation to exercise reasonable care to provide his servants with reasonably safe instrumentalities and appliances with which to perform their work, and, where the work is attended with peculiar conditions, not known to the servant, increasing the risks and hazards of the employment, to warn and instruct the servant concerning the same. The duty to provide reasonably safe instrumentalities embraces the obligation to provide a sufficient number of servants to perform the work safely. Wood, M. & S., § 394; Craig v. Chicago, 54 Mo. App. 523; Johnson v. Ashland, 71 Wis. 553, 37 N. W. 823. Proper and sufficient help and assistance are as essential in the performance of the servant's duty, when not safely performed alone, as safe instrumentalities, and the law enjoins upon the master the duty of providing them. We are cited to no case in this court covering this particular feature of the law of negligence, but the general principles applicable to such questions have been elaborated in various cases, and fully sustain the view just stated, and the cases cited in support of it. The rule applies to the case at bar, and covers the first alleged ground of negligence, viz., that defendant was negligent in not providing plaintiff with other servants to assist him in moving the presses to their position in the factory.
As to the second ground of negligence, that it was the absolute duty of defendant to inform and instruct plaintiff of the dangers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahlstrom v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M.R. Co.
...such as the fact that a top-heavy machine balanced by a detachable part will topple over if the part is removed. Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co., 90 Minn. 343, 96 N.W. 913.' From the evidence in the instant case the jury could reasonably find that the wheels of the hand truck became lo......
-
Blomberg v. Trupukka, 32779.
......, and Frankberg & Berghuis, of Fergus Falls, for respondents.PETERSON, Justice. This is an action to recover damages for personal ...Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co., 90 Minn. 343, 96 N.W. 913. The authorities ......
-
Blomberg v. Trupukka
...such as the fact that a top-heavy machine balanced by a detachable part will topple over if the part is removed. Peterson v. American Grass Twine Co., 90 Minn. 343, 96 N.W. 913. The authorities elsewhere support the view that there is no duty to warn against a so obvious and generally known......
-
Jirmasek v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...a sufficient number of servants to do the work in which they are employed with reasonable safety to themselves. Peterson v. Am. Grass, etc., Co., 90 Minn. 343, 96 N. W. 913;Dell v. McGrath, 92 Minn. 187, 99 N. W. 629;Manore v. Kilgore-Peteler Co., 107 Minn. 347, 120 N. W. 340; Labatt, M. & ......