Pruke v. South Park F. & M. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1897
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,504 - (138).,s. 10,504 - (138).
• Citation: 68 Minn. 305
• Parties: JACOB PRUKE v. SOUTH PARK FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 305

JACOB PRUKE v. SOUTH PARK FOUNDRY & MACHINE COMPANY.¹

Nos. 10,504 - (138).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 21, 1897.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Willis, J., refusing a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Morton Barrows, for appellant.

Butts & Jaques, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

Personal injury action, in which plaintiff had a verdict. On appeal it is claimed that the evidence fails to disclose any negligence on the part of the defendant; that it was not made to appear from the evidence that the negligence alleged was the cause of the injury; and also, if neither of these positions is sustainable, that it was clearly shown that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which would prevent a recovery. We do not feel it necessary to discuss these contentions at any great length. The cause upon all these questions was clearly and fairly submitted to the jury in the charge of the trial court; a charge which seems to have been very satisfactory to the counsel concerned.

1. As to the claim that there was no evidence of defendant's negligence. While attempting to put a belt upon an overhead pulley, plaintiff's coat was caught by the sleeve, and he was pulled up over a line of shafting, receiving the injuries complained of. The pulley was kept in place by a set screw, which fastened the collar of the pulley to the shafting. The head of the screw was not protected or guarded in any way, was a cube one-half inch square, and projecting at least five-eighths of an inch from the shaft, which, at the time of the accident, was making about 150 revolutions to the minute; and it was plaintiff's claim that his sleeve was caught by the screw as he attempted to throw the belt with his left hand from the shaft, on which it loosely hung, to the pulley on which it ran when in use. We quite agree with defendant's counsel that his client was not obliged to guard against all possibility of danger to employes, but cannot acquiesce in the further contention that "the chances of injury were so slight and remote that they could not reasonably be anticipated."

The location of the screw was within two inches of an 8-inch pulley set upon a shaft two and one-half inches in diameter. The belt operated a grindstone on the floor below, about six feet distant, and when heavy pressure was applied to the stone the belt frequently dropped off the pulley onto the shafting, and over the head of the screw. It then became necessary for some one to replace it, and this was usually done by stepping up on a box placed upon a work bench or table, putting one hand in between the pulley and an upright post on which the shafting was suspended, lifting the belt about three inches, and placing it upon the pulley. This was an every-day occurrence, according to the evidence. The defendant had not provided a belt shifter, or any other contrivance, for the purpose of throwing the belt either off or on, and, as before stated, had taken no precautions to guard against or to prevent the clothing of those who...