Vukelis v. Va. Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 05 February 1909
• Citation: 119 N.W. 509,107 Minn. 68
• Parties: VUKELIS v. VIRGINIA LUMBER CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

107 Minn. 68

119 N.W. 509

VUKELIS

v.VIRGINIA LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 5, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge.

Personal injury action by Bob Vukelis against the Virginia Lumber Company. From an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

As against a general demurrer to a complaint, the question is whether, assuming every fact alleged to be true, enough has been stated to constitute any cause of action whatever.

A complaint will be deemed sufficient when the necessary allegations may be gathered from all the averments, although the pleading is deficient in logical order and technical language.

A pleading will be held to state all facts that can be implied from the allegations by reasonable and fair intendment. Facts so implied are traversable in the same manner as though stated directly.

A complaint in a personal injury action held good as against a general demurrer. E. C. Kennedy and H. D. Bailey, for appellant.

J. De La Motte, for respondent.

ELLIOTT, J.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to a complaint which alleges: That the defendant is and at the time herein mentioned was a corporation engaged in the business of lumbering and getting out logs and timber by rail, and that in its business it owned and operated a railroad, and had cars, engines, tracks, switches, and appliances usually and customarily had, owned, and operated by railroads. That the defendant had and operated in its business near camp 15 what was known as a log loader or jammer, operated by steam and propelled along the rails by its own power, and that the jammer was in operation on the line of railroad at the time of the injuries to the plaintiff complained of. That at the time mentioned the plaintiff was earning and capable of earning $40 per month and board. That it was his duty to fasten the hooks upon the chain of said jammer into the chains tied around the logs to be loaded onto the cars, and to change the skids from one car to another after being so loaded. That the manner of doing the work was as follows: The jammer would move forward upon the track to the first car to be loaded, the brakes would be set, then the plaintiff and his partner would place skids at each end of the car to be loaded, and then hook the hook of the jammer chain into the chain which fastened the logs together. The engineer would then start the machinery in motion, and the logs would be loaded onto the car. After the car was loaded with about 10 tiers of logs the jammer would then bank up, and the plaintiff and his partner would remove the skids from the loaded car and place them against the car to be next loaded, and the operation would be repeated. That it was the duty of the defendant to the plaintiff to furnish him with a safe place to work and with safe and careful servants with whom he was to perform his work, and to warn and instruct him as to the dangers connected with his work, and to give him warnings and instructions, by whistle or bell or otherwise, when about to move the cars or car upon which the jammer was operated, so as...