Smith v. E. W. Backus Lumber Company

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CANTY, J.
• Citation: Smith v. E. W. Backus Lumber Company, 67 N.W. 358, 64 Minn. 447 (Minn. 1896)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1896
• Docket Number: 9804--(29)
• Parties: CHARLES A. SMITH v. E. W. BACKUS LUMBER COMPANY

67 N.W. 358

64 Minn. 447

CHARLES A. SMITH v. E. W. BACKUS LUMBER COMPANY

Nos. 9804--(29)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 20, 1896

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, in favor of plaintiff for $ 1,855.81, after a trial before Belden, J., and a jury. Affirmed.

This disposes of the case, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Koon Whelan & Bennett, for appellant.

R. L Penney, for respondent.

OPINION

CANTY J.

Plaintiff recovered a verdict for damages for personal injury, and defendant appeals from the judgment entered thereon after the making of an order denying its motion for a new trial.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as night sawyer in its sawmill during the time from May until August 21, 1894. On the night of the last-named day, the band saw which he was running struck a piece of plate iron imbedded in the log, causing the teeth of the saw to break and fly off, one of which teeth struck the plaintiff in his right eye, destroying it, and another tooth struck him in the face, causing a flesh wound. The piece of iron was about 2 1/2 feet long, 4 inches wide, and one-quarter of an inch thick. It had been driven into a split in the butt end of the log, evidently by some malicious person, and about an inch and one-half or two inches of the end of it remained exposed, and bent over against the end of the log.

Plaintiff's claim is that his injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to furnish him with sufficient light to enable him to inspect the logs properly, and discover pieces of iron or stone which were liable to be stuck on or embedded in the logs, and that, if proper light had been so furnished, he would have discovered the piece of iron in question in time to have prevented the injury. The lights in use were incandescent electric lights, and the electricity to supply them was generated on the premises by the same steam plant which operated the sawmill. Appellant insists on but one point, -- that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

We are of the opinion that plaintiff can claim nothing by reason of the removal, a couple of weeks before the injury, of the light known as the "sawyer's light," as the evidence conclusively shows that, by reason of its position, the water and dirt from the saw covered the glass, and obscured the light, so as to make it useless.

We are also of the opinion that he can claim nothing by reason of there being too few lights at and about the place where he worked, as he himself testified as follows:

"Q. At other times than those periods you have spoken of, when the lights were down, they were good? Except at the times when the lights went down in the way you have described, they were good, so you could see? A. They were good; as bright as day. Q. You had no fault to find with them? A. No fault to find with them. Q. Then the cause of your trouble and of your complaint here is not that there were not sufficient lights, but that they let them go down, so you couldn't see; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And it was these periods of going down that you complain of here? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, do I understand you to say that they would be down two or three hours at a time before midnight, and two or three hours at a time after midnight? A. Yes, sir. Q. And during those times it was so dark that, if you raised your hand like that [indicating], a man off eight feet couldn't tell whether you had up two fingers or one? A. Yes; that's right. Q. That is true? A. Yes, sir; that is true. Q. And this condition of the lights was not only on your side of the mill, where you ran your saw, but was over on the other side, too? A. It was on the other side, too. * * * Q. It was all over that floor where you were? A. Yes."

Unless it can be presumed from such evidence as this that the electric light plant was out of order, there is no evidence to show that it was. Conceding, as appellant contends, that the most the...