Ulseth v. Crookston Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1906
• Citation: 106 N.W. 307,97 Minn. 178
• Parties: ULSETH v. CROOKSTON LUMBER CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 Minn. 178

106 N.W. 307

ULSETH

v.CROOKSTON LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 26, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by Emery Ulseth, by Iver Ulseth, his guardian ad litem, against the Crookston Lumber Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

In a personal injury action, the evidence considered, and held not to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant. Davis & Hollister, for appellant.

Martin O'Brien, H. Steenerson, and Charles Loring, for respondent.

ELLIOTT, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant's alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The plaintiff. Ulseth, a boy about 15 years old, was in the employ of the Crookston Brick & Tile Company. On November 16, 1904, he was sent to the defendant's lumber yard to get two sticks of timber. With an employé of the defendant named Munson he drove alongside the pile of lumber from which the timbers were to be taken. The forward end of the wagon was near the lumber pile, and the rear end a few feet farther away. Munson got onto the lumber pile, and Ulseth remained on the wagon. The timbers were 8 by 8 inches, and 12 feet long. The first stick was loaded upon the wagon without difficulty. Munson shoved one end of the second stick onto the wagon, where it was taken by Ulseth and pulled forward toward the fore part of the wagon. While they were in this position, Ulseth shoving his end forward and Munson holding the other end, Munson, for some unexplained reason, released his hold, and the stick fell between the lumber pile and the wagon, throwing Ulseth out and injuring him severely.

There is no evidence to show why Munson released his hold on the stick. The complaint alleges that, ‘while the said agent well knew that the plaintiff was so carrying the said timber, he (said agent) carelessly and negligently shoved, threw, and released his hold upon the end of the timber which he (said agent) was carrying, in such a manner that said timber did not strike in said wagon, but struck the side of the wagon box thereof at about the center of the said piece of timber, in such manner that the end thereof which plaintiff was carrying struck this plaintiff,’ etc. The gist of the charge is that Munson thus ‘carelessly and negligently shoved, threw, and released his hold upon the end of the timber.’ There is no evidence whatever to show why or how Munson...