Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiberware Co.
| Decision Date | 16 November 1894 |
| Citation | 60 N.W. 1093,59 Minn. 116 |
| Parties | SCHARENBROICH v. ST. CLOUD FIBERWARE CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Held, that the evidence conclusively shows that a servant not only knew the exact character and condition of the appliances furnished him by his master, but also understood, or by the exercise of common observation ought to have understood, the risks to which he was exposed by their use, and therefore must be deemed to have voluntarily assumed such risks. Canty, J., dissenting.
Appeal from district court, Stearns county; L. L. Baxter, Judge.
Action by Henry Scharenbroich against the St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Company to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Reversed.
G. W. Stewart, for appellant.
Taylor, Calhoun & Rhodes, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligently leaving unguarded and uncovered a pinion in its pulp mill, in which plaintiff was employed. The power to operate the machinery was furnished by a water wheel under a small annex to the mill. This wheel was connected with the machinery by a horizontal shaft running under the floor of the annex. Upon the end of the shaft was a pinion connecting with a cog wheel immediately under the floor. This pinion was placed in a hole cut in the floor, so that it was partly above and partly below the floor. The hole in the floor was somewhat larger than the pinion, thus leaving an open space of two or three inches at the side of the pinion. When the machinery was in motion the pinion revolved quite rapidly. That part of the pinion which extended above the floor was open and unguarded. At one side of this pinion, and a few inches distant from it, there came up through the floor, from the water wheel below, a vertical shaft, with a horizontal handle or lever attached to the upper end of it. This was for the purpose of turning the water off and on the water wheel, which was done by turning the lever. The usual and natural place for a person to stand, when turning the lever, was between it and the wall of the room, thus leaving the upright shaft between him and the pinion. It took considerable force to turn the lever, and the higher the water the more force was required. During high water, when the water was first turned on, it would strike the cogs of the wheel, and spray up through the hole in the floor, rendering it wet, and consequently somewhat slippery. There were no cleats on the floor, against which to brace the feet while turning the lever. The plaintiff, a young man, aged about 22 years, and presumably of ordinary intelligence, was employed as a laborer in the mill, and among his regular duties was that of turning the water off and on, which had to be done quite a number of times every day. He was not a skilled mechanic, but he had worked in this mill during two previous seasons, and the evidence is conclusive that he was fully aware of all the facts above stated, and had full knowledge of the exact nature and condition of the alleged dangerous machinery. On the occasion when he was injured, he had been sent to turn off the water, for the purpose of permitting a belt to be put on the “barker.” This having been done, he then proceeded to turn on the water again. He had turned it partly on, when the water, being more than usually high, sprayed up in considerable quantities on the floor where he was standing. For this reason, and also because it required his full strength to turn the lever, and the space where he stood, between the upright shaft and the wall, was rather narrow, he shifted his position, and moved around nearly opposite the end of the pinion; and while there, in the act of turning the lever, his foot slipped, came in contact with the revolving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
...ought he to have understood the risk, to which he was exposed by the dangerous situation? Mitchell, J., in Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Co., 59 Minn. 116, 121, 60 N. W. 1093. Most if not all, of the opposed decisions, which have adopted indifferently either or both this standard an......
-
Rase v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co.
...ought he to have understood the risk, to which he was exposed by the dangerous situation? Mitchell, J., in Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Co., 59 Minn. 116, 121, 60 N. W. 1093. Most, if not all, of the opposed decisions, which have adopted indifferently either or both this standard a......
-
Erickson v. Van Web Equipment Co.
...of risk. Geis v. Hodgman, 255 Minn. 1, 95 N.W.2d 311; Syverson v. Nelson, 245 Minn. 63, 70 N.W.2d 880; Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fiber-Ware Co., 59 Minn. 116, 60 N.W. 1093. Under the doctrine of assumption of risk as applied in this state, a servant also assumes such extraordinary risks in......
-
O'Neill v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...94, 24 N. W. 318;Berger v. Railway Co., 39 Minn. 78, 38 N. W. 814;Quick v. Iron Co., 47 Minn. 361, 50 N. W. 244;Scharenbroich v. Fiber-Ware Co., 59 Minn. 116, 60 N. W. 1093;Smith v. Tromanhauser, 63 Minn. 98, 65 N. W. 144. Order reversed, and a new trial granted.BROWN, J., absent, took no ...