Vills v. City of Cloquet
| Decision Date | 01 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,679 - (30) |
| Parties | JOHN VILLS v. CITY OF CLOQUET |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action by John Vills, as the father and natural guardian of John W Vills, his infant son of six years, in the district court for the county of Carlton, to recover $25,000 for the benefit of the son. The complaint, among other allegations, averred that it was the duty of defendant city under the laws of the state and its charter, if, in the prosecution of its public work it was required to use dynamite fuse caps, fuses or other explosives, carefully to handle them and, when the same were not being used, safely and carefully to house and store them in such manner that the same could not be gotten at, or secured, in any way by children or any other person who might endanger their lives and limbs by the thoughtless or ignorant use of such explosives, and such was its duty toward the public and especially to the minor son of plaintiff, and other children of like age; that it wholly and negligently failed to perform this duty. The complaint then set up the facts mentioned in the opinion, and alleged that the fuse caps were composed of brass or copper, making a bright metal and were especially attractive to and [eagerly] sought by children for purposes of play, a fact which defendant in the exercise of reasonable care should have especially guarded against in the storage of caps in its store house, and such was its duty toward the public, and especially toward plaintiff's son and other children of similar age and inexperience, all of which reasonable care plaintiff failed to exercise in the premises. The answer admitted that John W Vills was injured, alleged that defendant did not know the manner of said injury and therefore denied the same. It also contained the allegations quoted in the opinion on page 282. The reply was a general denial.
The case was tried before Dancer, J., who denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,250. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in part granting its motion for a new trial, upon the issue whether due notice of the injury was served upon the city, defendant appealed. Order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying a new trial affirmed. Order granting a new trial on the issue of notice to the city reversed, with directions to the trial court to enter judgment on the verdict.
Negligence in storing explosives.
Defendant kept a quantity of explosive fuse caps in a tool house on a lot in the city. Boys went into the tool house through an opening in the loose stones used as a foundation, took the caps, and threw them on the ground outside of the house. Plaintiff's six-year-old son, in playing about the premises, found one of the caps, and was injured by its explosion while he was playing with it. It is held:
1. The evidence sustains a finding that the defendant was negligent in storing the fuse caps in the tool house without sufficient precautions to prevent children from entering and taking them.
2. It was a question for the jury whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, and the evidence sustains the verdict on this point.
3. Allegations of the pleadings construed and held that the answer admitted that plaintiff had caused due service of a notice of the time, place and circumstances of the accident to be served upon the proper city officers.
J. A. Fesenbeck and Baldwin & Baldwin, for appellant.
John A. Keyes and Bert W. Forbes, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff, as the father and natural guardian of his six-year-old son, to recover for personal injuries received by the latter through the explosion of a fuse cap with which he was playing. The trial resulted in a verdict of $2,250 in favor of plaintiff. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The motion for judgment was denied, and the motion for a new trial granted solely upon the issue as to whether due notice of the time, place and circumstances of the injury was served upon the defendant city, as required by statute. Defendant appealed from the whole of this order, and plaintiff appealed from that part of the order which granted a new trial on the issue named.
The chief question, on defendant's appeal, is whether a case was made for the jury, and if so, whether the evidence sustains the verdict. The evidence justified a finding that the following facts were true:
In April, 1910, defendant, the city of Cloquet, set up a stone crusher and tool house near a stone quarry on a vacant lot near the city for the purpose of quarrying and crushing stone for street improvements. The crusher stood near the road, and was supplied with stone from the quarry by means of a miniature railway track and cars. The tool house stood about forty feet back from the road. A wire fence surrounded the lot, but part of the wires were down at a point near where the crusher was, and access to the lot and tool house through this opening was easy. The tool house was about fourteen feet square and nine feet high, and had a door and two windows. It rested on stones placed under the corners; loose stones were also placed under the sides and ends of the shed; there was no floor to the tool house and the stones were for the purpose of guarding against theft of the tools. The city of Cloquet completed its work about July 1, 1910, and abandoned the premises, leaving the tool house locked, and the windows fastened. In September, 1910, the Cloquet Lumber Company, by permission of the city and under its supervision, used the crusher and tool house. This work was completed in October. After this no use was made of the crusher or tool house, but they remained on the premises, with no supervision save one or two visits by employees of the city. In the spring of 1911, boys occasionally visited the premises, and played with whatever pleased their fancy. About a month prior to the accident some boys entered the tool house by going through a hole between the stones under it and carried away lubricating oil found in a barrel. Two or three days before the accident two...
To continue reading
Request your trial