Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co

• Decision Date: 20 April 1894
• Docket Number: 8580
• Citation: 58 N.W. 832,57 Minn. 52
• Parties: Frank Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

58 N.W. 832

57 Minn. 52

Frank Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co

No. 8580

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 20, 1894

Argued April 9, 1894.

Appeal by defendant, the North Star Woolen Mill Company, a corporation, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Thomas Canty, J., made July 8, 1893, denying its motion for a new trial.

On Tuesday, July 5, 1892, the plaintiff Frank Truntle commenced work for defendant for eighty cents a day in its mill at Minneapolis, and on the next Saturday his left arm was injured in one of its carding machines. He was fifteen years old on August 4, 1892. The third floor of the mill was occupied by a large number, about forty, of these carding machines arranged in rows. He was taken there and told to observe the other operatives and was given charge of five of the machines. This action was brought to recover damages for this personal injury and was first tried in December, 1892 and plaintiff had a verdict for $ 2,000. This verdict was set aside on defendant's motion and a new trial granted. At the second trial on April 26, 1893, the Judge charged the jury as follows:

"If you find from the evidence that the boy was of sufficient age and discretion to do this work without any special instructions, your verdict must be for the defendant. If the boy was young and inexperienced it was the duty of the defendant to instruct him in such safe methods of doing the work as are ordinarily employed in doing such work and it was its duty to warn him of the dangers to which he was exposed and to see that he not only understood these things but also that he appreciated the dangers to which he was exposed. If you find that the boy was not of proper age and discretion to be put at this work without special instruction and if you find that he was given proper instructions, then your verdict must be for the defendant. If you find that from his own experience, from the length of time he had been at work, he understood these dangers and had learned the proper way of doing the work, then your verdict must be for the defendant. If you find that he had learned from any source the proper way of doing this work and had a proper appreciation of the dangers connected with it, then your verdict must be for the defendant. But if you find that he did not understand and appreciate the dangers connected with this work and that he was not properly instructed and proper care was not taken to see that he did appreciate these things, and that he was injured by reason thereof, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If he were a grown person the rule would be that he should use ordinary prudence, and if he did not do so and thereby contributed to his own injury he could not recover. We do not apply that rule to a boy who has not got the capacity of a man, whose age and want of discretion does not give him the capacity of a man, but he must use the amount of care which a boy of his age should use. If he did not and his own carelessness contributed to the injury, then he cannot recover. Simply because he was a boy he was not exempt from the obligation to be careful.

"The only complaint is, that the boy did not understand the danger, that he did not have experience and he was not of the age and discretion to appreciate and understand the danger and that the master neglected to warn him properly of the danger, and to use proper care to see that he appreciated it.

"An employer is not an insurer of the men he may employ in his business, and cannot be held liable for injuries which they may sustain while performing the duties of their employment unless such injuries occur through, and result directly from some negligent act or omission of the employer, and without fault or neglect on the part of the injured person."

Plaintiff had a verdict for $ 5,750. Defendant moved the court to again grant a new trial but was denied and it appeals. The argument here was upon the facts.

Order reversed.

J. W. Gilger and A. B. Jackson, for appellant.

The trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the action at the close of the plaintiff's testimony and again in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant at the close of defendant's testimony. The evidence failed to disclose sufficient facts to constitute negligence on the part of defendant. The plaintiff's evidence disclosed carelessness and negligence on his own part, directly contributing to the injury complained of. Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Erickson, 55 F. 943; Buckley v. Gutta Percha & R. M. Co., 113 N.Y. 540; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co., 113 Mass. 396; Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228; Ciriack v. Merchants' Woolen Co., 146 Mass. 182; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.Y. 26; Probert v. Phipps, 149 Mass. 258; Coullard v. Tecumseh Mills, 151 Mass. 85; Palmer v. Harrison, 57 Mich. 182; De Graff v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 76 N.Y. 125; Atlas Engine Works v. Randall, 100 Ind. 293; Ludwig v. Pillsbury, 35 Minn. 256; Berger v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 78; Larson v. St. Paul & D. R. Co., 43 Minn. 488.

Larrabee & Gammons, for respondent.

There is no dispute between counsel about the correct rule of law governing the duty of a master toward an inexperienced minor servant put to work upon dangerous machinery. The difference between counsel arises in the application of well settled rules to the facts in this case. About one half the cases appellant cites are from Massachusetts where the courts are greatly biased by sympathy with corporate interests as is said in 1 Shearman & Redfield Negligence (4th Ed.) § 189, Note 2. Coombs v. New Bedford C. Co., 102 Mass. 572; Chicago Anderson Pressed Brick Co. v. Reinneiger, 140 Ill. 334; Tagg v. McGeorge, 155 Pa. St. 368; Honlahan v. New Am. File Co., 17 R. I. 141; Jones v. Florence Mining Co., 66 Wis. 277; Thompson v. Johnston Bros. Co., 86 Wis. 576; Rolling Mill Co. v. Corrigan, 46 Ohio St. 283; Steiler v. Hart, 65 Mich. 644; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Perogoy, 36 Kans. 424; Dowling v. Allen, 102 Mo. 213; Wynne v. Conklin, 86 Ga. 40; Whitelaw v. Railway Co., 16 Lea 391; Hinckley v. Horazdowsky, 133 Ill. 359; Railroad Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553.

Inexperienced minors must be instructed in the manner in which the work may be done safely. Parkhurst v. Johnson, 50 Mich. 70; Ingerman v. Moore, 90 Cal. 410; Reynolds v. Boston & M. R. Co., 64 Vt. 66; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Harkins, 55 F. 932; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Laack, 143 Ill. 242; Leigh v. Omaha St. Ry. Co., 36 Neb. 131.

Mitchell J. Buck and Canty, JJ., took no part.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff (a boy of fifteen years) while employed as a "helper" in defendant's carding room, by having his arm caught between the rollers of the carding machine.

The negligence charged against the defendant was failing to give plaintiff proper instructions how to perform his work, or proper cautions as to the dangerous character of the machinery, and as to what it was necessary for him to do in order to avoid injury to himself while tending the machine. The charge of the court was an accurate and concise, yet complete, statement of the general principles of law applicable to this class of cases, and the only question here is whether the evidence justified the verdict. A perusal of the record would, we think, impress any one that the evidence of negligence on part of the defendant, proximately contributing to the injury, was, to say the least, very weak and the evidence tending to prove contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff quite strong; the only question being whether, on these two points, it made a case for the jury, -- often a very delicate and embarrassing question in this class of cases. It is unnecessary to describe in detail the construction or operation of these carding machines, which will be well understood by all who are familiar with them. It will be enough for present purposes to refer to a few facts which will explain wherein we think the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. The duties of a "helper" are to insert the ends of the woolen strands in the proper feed spaces in the feed board in front of the creel, to substitute full spools on the creel for those which have been run off empty, and to take off the full spools of carded wool at the back of the machine, and replace them with empty ones. The slits in the feed board, while wide enough to admit the woolen strands, are too narrow to permit the fingers of the helper to pass through. The distance from this feed board back to the "main cylinder" is eighteen inches, and to the "stripper" fourteen inches, and the distance between the feed...