Steen v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company
| Citation | 34 N.W. 113,37 Minn. 310 |
| Parties | Louis A. Steen v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1887 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
The plaintiff was injured while in the employment of the defendant, and engaged, with others, in operating a pile-driver, and brought this action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover damages for such injury. The action was tried before Start, J., (acting for the judge of the 11th district,) and a jury, and plaintiff had a verdict for $ 4,000. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
Ensign Cash & Williams, for appellant.
Edson & Warner, for respondent.
This case has only required a careful consideration of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether it justified a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. More particularly, the appeal presents the double question as to whether the case justified the conclusion that the defendant was chargeable with neglect of duty towards its employe, the plaintiff, by reason of the dangerous condition of a pile-driver, in connection with which he was at work, and whether the case warranted the further conclusion that the plaintiff was not chargeable with contributory negligence, or with having himself assumed the risks resulting from the defects shown in respect to the machinery. The evidence tended to show a state of facts of which the following is a summary The plaintiff was employed as a laborer, with others, to operate the pile-driver, under a foreman. When he was employed he declared to his employer, but untruly, that he was accustomed to such work. The apparatus was new, being first put in operation on the day of the plaintiff's employment, February 3d. The cable by which the hammer was raised was a three-quarter inch wire rope. This ran from the top of the structure down, and under a drum-shaped pulley and thence to and around a revolving drum at the engine, which was in a house some 20 feet in the rear. The pulley, or drum as it may better be termed, first mentioned, had projecting flanges at the sides to prevent the rope from slipping off. There were also other appliances, not necessary to be described, intended to serve the same purpose. The drum, revolving on a horizontal axis, had also designedly a considerable, and, as it seems, too great, rotary motion upon a perpendicular axis or swivel, for the purpose of allowing a change in the direction of the line when it became necessary to change the location of the machine.
The plaintiff was stationed at one side of the pile-driver, with an iron bar, to assist in holding the structure from being drawn backward on the ice by the engine when the hammer was being raised. The apparatus being put in operation on the afternoon of February 3d, it was then discovered that, by reason of defects in the structure and adjustment of the parts, the wire rope was liable, when slack, to get out of its place under the drum, so as to require that it be put back in place. The foreman directed the laborers, including the plaintiff, to watch this, and to put it back when it came out of place. There would have been no great difficulty in overcoming this defect, and by temporary appliances it was partially, but not wholly, remedied in the forenoon of the next day.
The evidence also tends to show that before the accident occurred some of the wires composing the rope had become broken or ragged, from cutting across the flanges of the drum, owing to the too great motion of the latter upon the swivel, and also from the power having been applied when the rope was off the drum.
In the afternoon of the second day of the work the engineer had stopped the engine to attend to some duties in connection with it. The engine was thus motionless during a time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial