Peterson v. Merchants Elevator Company
| Decision Date | 20 May 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,523 - (99) |
| Citation | 126 N.W. 534,111 Minn. 105 |
| Parties | PETER PETERSON v. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by the administrator of the estate of Magnus Johnson, deceased, to recover $5,000 damages for the death of his intestate caused by defendant's alleged negligence while employed in its grain elevator. The answer alleged Johnson's death was the result of his own carelessness and negligence; that he was an experienced man in and about elevators of the kind in which he was employed at the time of his death, that he had been employed in similar work with similar hazards for a period of upwards of twenty years, and that he well knew and appreciated all of the dangers in and about the machinery that caused his death. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Simpson, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded. Defendant's motion for an instructed verdict in its favor was denied. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Injury from unprotected machinery -- questions for jury.
In an action for the death of one of defendant's employees by coming in contact with uncovered and dangerous machinery, it is held that the questions of defendant's negligence, the employee's contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were properly submitted to the jury.
Conversation with deceased servant -- evidence by stockholder of defendant.
A stockholder in a corporation, though action in the capacity of manager or superintendent, cannot be heard to give in evidence a conversation with a deceased employee upon matters material to the issues in litigation against the corporation for wrongfully causing his death.
Excessive damages.
Damages awarded by the jury held not excessive.
Trafford N. Jayne, for appellant.
Mead & Robertson, for respondent.
Defendant was engaged in operating a grain elevator in the city of Minneapolis. Plaintiff's intestate was in its employ as a laborer, and was killed while in the discharge of his duties by coming in contact with an uncovered dangerous machine, and this action was prosecuted by his personal representative in behalf of the next of kin. A verdict was returned for plaintiff, and defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
The short facts are that on the second floor of defendant's elevator, in which decedent was at the time of his death engaged at work, defendant operates two electric motors designated in the record as motor No. 1 and No. 2, supplied with electricity from outside the building. Attached to motor No. 2, and a part of its running gear, are two sets of cogwheels, one twenty-four and the other six inches in diameter. A shaft attached to these wheels makes nine hundred revolutions a minute, and the wheels when uncovered were a source of extreme danger to any workman coming in contact with them. A cover had been provided for the same but was not attached at the time of the accident. The motor became out of order, and on November 5, 1908, was taken out for repairs, and was returned and installed in the proper place on the nineteenth of the same month. For some reason it did not work properly on its return, and the cover to the cogwheels was not replaced; the reason for this action being to enable the employees to learn the nature of the defect preventing its proper operation. The cover remained off until the day of decedent's death, a period of about nine days. Decedent, while attempting to oil some of the bearings of the motor, was caught in the cogwheels and almost instantly killed.
1. It appearing to have been practicable, it was the duty of defendant, under the statutes, to guard or cover the cogwheels, to the end that employees engaged in work about the motor might be protected from injury. The court so charged the jury, and of this no complaint is made. A cover had been provided, but for a week or more had not been in place, and the dangerous part of the machine was exposed. The trial court recognized the rightfulness of defendant's conduct in leaving the cover off for the purpose of discovering the defect in the mechanism of the motor, but submitted to the jury to determine whether the failure to replace the cover within nine days was reasonable or unreasonable, saying, in effect, that defendant had the right to remove the cover for the purpose stated for a reasonable length of time. In this view we discover no reason for disagreeing with the trial court. The question whether the machine was left uncovered for an unreasonable time was properly submitted to the jury, and we affirm their conclusion that defendant was chargeable with negligence in not sooner discovering the defect referred to and replacing the cover. Davidson v. Flour City Ornamental Iron Works, 107 Minn. 17, 119 N.W. 483.
2. The principal contention on the facts is that decedent assumed the risks of working about the uncovered motor, and therefore plaintiff cannot recover. Our conclusion upon this branch of the case is that the question was properly submitted to the jury.
Decedent had been in the employ of defendant for two or three months during which time he had been engaged in different kinds of work, among other things being charged with the duty of oiling the machinery whenever directed to do so, or whenever in his judgment it was necessary or proper. He was, however, a common laborer, not a mechanic, and not shown to have been familiar with the construction and operation of the motors used in this elevator. Another servant, one Noreen, had charge of this particular motor, and the evidence tends to show that he attended to the matter of oiling its various parts during all the time it remained uncovered up to the day decedent met his death. On the morning of that day decedent was set to work on the floor upon which this motor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial