Rademacher v. Pioneer Tractor Manufacturing Company
| Decision Date | 16 October 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,778 - (41) [2] |
| Citation | 149 N.W. 24,127 Minn. 172 |
| Parties | FRANK J. RADEMACHER v. PIONEER TRACTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Winona county by the administrator of the estate of Frank Rademacher, deceased, to recover $7,500 for the death of his intestate while in the employ of defendant. The answer alleged that there were no risks or dangers incident to decedent's employment which he did not know or appreciate, or were not readily observable, and that he assumed the risks and dangers as the result of which he came to his death. The case was tried before Snow, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $5,000 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying its motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Fire -- negligence of defendant -- evidence.
1. Plaintiff's intestate was killed by fire in defendant's factory. The portion burned consisted of a frame building with a shingled roof. It was the custom of defendant's employees to burn rags and greasy waste in the heating furnace. Just before the fire the furnace was full and ready to be fired. A few hours after the fire it was found to be empty. In the meantime smoke was seen indicating a fire in the furnace. The burning of the rubbish usually emitted sparks. The fire started on the shingled roof. The inside of the building was lined with tar paper, and in it were various forms of combustible material. The evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the rubbish in the furnace was burned by defendant and emitted sparks which caused the fire, and that the origin and spread of the fire was due to negligence on the part of defendant.
Contradictory evidence -- jury not bound to believe all.
2. After the fire deceased was found lying near his bench on the second floor of the burned building. He had been seen in various parts of the factory not long before. He was also seen at his bench a matter of a few minutes before the fire. He had left no unfinished work elsewhere. Escape was not easy for persons at or near his bench. It is presumed that he was exercising care for his own safety. The evidence sustains a finding that he was at the bench when the fire started. Two witnesses testified to seeing him elsewhere when the fire started, and one of them that he ran into the building when it was burning. The testimony of these witnesses is contradicted in many particulars and it contains some inherent improbabilities, and the jury were not bound to believe it.
Charge to jury.
3. The charge, taken as a whole, fairly submitted the case to the jury and contains no reversible error.
Bracelen & Cronin, for appellant.
Webber & Lees and W. J. Smith, for respondent.
Plaintiff was employed as a millwright in one of the buildings in defendant's factory in Winona. On July 2, 1913, he lost his life in a fire in the factory. On trial of this action for damages, plaintiff, the administrator of his estate, had a verdict. Defendant moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Both being denied, defendant appealed.
The claim of plaintiff is, that this fire was caused by defendant's negligence, that deceased was entrapped while at work in a second-story room, and without fault on his part was overcome by fire and smoke. Defendant denies negligence and claims deceased was employed in another building when the fire broke out, and lost his life in a reckless attempt to get his tools from the burning building.
We see nothing in this case but questions of fact. They were fairly submitted to the jury, and the jury has settled them in favor of plaintiff.
1. First, as to the cause of fire. The factory consisted of two buildings 18 feet apart, a brick building and a two-story frame building. The frame building was burned. On the second story of this building was the workbench of deceased. The fire started on the shingled roof of this building. The weather was hot and dry. It was the custom of the defendant in the summer time to dump refuse and waste, some of it combustible, into the fire box of the heating furnace, and there burn it. A few hours before the fire the fire box was full of "old rags and * * * greasy stuff." Soon after the fire the smoke stack of the furnace was observed smoking and the fire box was empty. Some of the rubbish was of a character likely to emit sparks. The inside walls and ceiling or rafters of the second story were lined with tar paper; there is evidence of oily waste and other combustible material being upon this floor, and that oil, paint and gasolene were kept and used there. All these things facilitated the spread of the fire.
We think the jury might fairly infer that the rubbish in the furnace was burned and that the building took fire from sparks from the smoke stack. No other reasonably probable theory is suggested by the evidence.
There is no direct evidence as to who started the fire in the furnace, but, under the practice prevailing, it was due to be fired by some employee of defendant. The jury might infer that the usual course of business was followed and that the rubbish was fired by some person in defendant's employ.
The jury might well find that the accumulation of this combustible material for burning in this manner was, under the circumstances, negligence. They might also find that the interior construction of this shop, and the permission of combustible material about the factory at the time when the rubbish was...
To continue reading
Request your trial