Soutar v. Minneapolis Int'l Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1897
• Citation: 68 Minn. 18,70 N.W. 796
• Parties: SOUTAR v MINNEAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 18

70 N.W. 796

SOUTARvMINNEAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 23, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence considered, and held that, upon the most favorable view of it for the plaintiff, it conclusively shows that he voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of using a certain box, handed to him by the defendant's superintendent, to stand upon in order to reach a wire which they were repairing.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Charles M. Pond, Judge.

Action by John Soutar against the Minneapolis International Electric Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Harrison & Noyes and Rolla E. Noyes, for appellant.

F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff, caused by defendant's alleged negligence. Verdict for the plaintiff for $6,574.88, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial. The defendant here claims that the evidence fails to show that it was negligent, but, if it be held otherwise, then it is claimed that the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and that the risk and danger, if any, of using the box in question in this case, were as obvious and as fully appreciated by the plaintiff as they were or could be by the defendant; hence the trial court ought to have directed a verdict for it. The evidence as to several material matters is conflicting, but we must accept, for the purpose of this appeal, the most favorable view of the evidence for the plaintiff. His evidence tended to establish these facts: The plaintiff, at the time of his injury, October 22, 1895, was 24 years old. He had been employed by the defendant as a carpenter, and in putting up, adjusting, and repairing electric wires, for a year previous to his injury. Prior to his employment by the defendant, he followed the business of a carpenter. During the time he worked for the defendant, George Lintner was its superintendent; and, at the time of the accident, the latter, the plaintiff, and the electrician, Beaumont, were engaged in adjusting wires which ran on the inside of the elevator shaft of the Edison Building, in the city of Minneapolis. The elevator shaft was next to the outside walls of the building, with windows nearly as wide as the elevator, and some seven feet high,-one on each floor. The window sills, on the inside, between the window and the elevator, were level, and 18 inches wide. The elevator was a square open platform for freight, which was operated by William Aldrich, and was standing at the time of the accident between the second and third floors of the building, and about four feet above the window sill of the window along which the wires which were being adjusted ran. While the plaintiff was standing on the platform of the elevator, and engaged in sawing a wire, he was directed by Lintner, the superintendent, who was also on the platform, to get down and stand on the window sill, as it was awkward working where he was. The plaintiff did as directed, and found that he was not tall enough to reach the wire, and so told Lintner, who directed Aldrich to get something for the plaintiff to stand upon. Aldrich got, as plaintiff claims, from a printing office in the building, a box, and passed it to Lintner, who immediately, without examination, passed it to the plaintiff, and said, “Stand on that;” also, “Hurry up; we want to get this work done before dark.” The plaintiff, without paying any attention whatever to the box, except to observe that it was a box, for the reason, as he claims, that he was being hurried, took it from Lintner, placed it sidewise on the window sill, and parallel thereto, stepped upon the box, which broke, and he was thereby thrown under the bottom of the elevator platform, and down the shaft, breaking his leg, and otherwise seriously injuring himself by the fall. The box was 2 1/2 feet long, 18 inches high, and 8 inches wide, made of inch boards nailed together, and “seemed to be a good solid box.” It was without cover or bottom, with a narrow strip nailed diagonally across from corner to corner. There were no latent defects in the box. It was perfectly light where the plaintiff stood on the window sill; also on the platform. His eyesight was unimpaired, and he had been accustomed as a carpenter to handle lumber, build frame houses and scaffolds. He had also previously worked in this same elevator shaft, adjusting and repairing the wires therein. When the plaintiff and Beaumont commenced the work in question, Lintner was not present. He visited the work two or three times during its progress, and, when present, both assisted in the work, and directed it. His last visit to the work was about 10 minutes before the accident. He went to the platform where the plaintiff was standing, and began to prepare the welding material for the wires. What followed we have already stated.

The foregoing statement of facts is as favorable to the plaintiff as his testimony warrants, and is based upon the assumption that it was true, although he was contradicted in material particulars. Do these...