Weber v. J. E. Barr Packing Corporation
| Decision Date | 06 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 28263.,28263. |
| Citation | 182 Minn. 486,234 N.W. 682 |
| Parties | WEBER v. J. E. BARR PACKING CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Stearns County; John A. Roeser, Judge.
Action by Ferdinand Weber, special administrator of the estate of Elmer Weber, deceased, against the J. E. Barr Packing Corporation and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, of St. Paul, for appellant Northern States Power Co.
Donohue, Quigley & Donohue, of St. Cloud, for appellant J. E. Barr Packing Corporation.
R. B. Brower and J. B. Himsl, both of St. Cloud, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from judgment rendered in an action to recover for the death of Elmer Weber caused by the alleged negligence of defendants. After the verdict, each defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There was no motion for a new trial.
The defendant packing corporation owns and operates an extensive canning plant at St. Cloud, Minn. At the peak of the canning season, it employs up to 400 persons, and operates both day and night. Tin cans are used in carload lots. A street running north and south formerly separated the pea canning plant on the west from that for canning beans and other products on the east, but the street was vacated and a spur track laid on the east side just west of the bean canning plant, upon which railroad cars are spotted for unloading empty cans. The cans are unloaded into an elevator or "booster" located on the east side of the track, so that the cans may be pitched into it from the side door of the car. An electric motor raises the cans in the booster some 25 or more feet, emptying them into a "twist" box supported on a frame trestle which runs from the bean canning plant on the east to the pea canning plant at a height of about 20 feet. The twist box is designed to turn the cans so as to deposit them upon a conveyor with the open or top end of the can up. The conveyor is an open metal box about 5 inches wide, the sides of which consist of narrow metal bands or strips, and the bottom is an endless cable running over rollers. This cable is operated by an electric motor, and thus about 200 cans a minute are conveyed from the twist box to the filler in the pea plant. The conveyor was bolted to iron cross-bars attached to the trestle, and its length from the twist box to where it entered the pea canning plant was approximately 66 feet; but from the twist box to the roof erected to protect against contact with the power wires was not half the distance. It is necessary to a smooth operation of the conveyor that every can thereon stand on its bottom. The twist box does not always deposit them thus. Elmer Weber, a lad almost 15 years old, was employed by the defendant packing corporation about a week prior to July 16, 1929, to sit at the twist box on the 16-inch plank walk running along the north side of the conveyor for the purpose of righting any can that might slide onto the conveyor in any other position than upright. Occasionally a can would fall on its side when some distance away from the twist box or had passed unnoticed in a wrong position onto the conveyor, and the one stationed at the twist box would then, along the plank walk, pursue the out of place can, overtake and right it before it reached the entrance to the pea canning plant. This plank walk was about 2 feet lower than the top of the conveyor until it came within 8 or 10 feet of where the power wires passed diagonally over it, then it slanted down to where it was 5½ feet below, and continued on that level to the pea canning plant. To protect the conveyor against wind, which when strong tipped the cans over, 12-inch boards were necessary; whether such boards were placed on both or only one side is left in doubt. Elmer was 5 feet 1½ inches tall.
When the railroad spur track was built, it was necessary for the power company to move the poles carrying the electric power lines. One of these poles was a few feet north of the conveyor and east of the pea canning plant. The power wire here concerned was within 2½ feet of the top of the metal conveyor. It was apparent to the packing corporation that this was dangerously close, and so the 16-inch walk was dropped down, as stated, when approaching the wires, and a roof 5½ feet wide and 6½ feet long was placed over the conveyor and extending over the walk. But even at that a man 5 feet 7 inches tall could reach up beyond this wire several inches when on the inclined part of the walk just before passing under the roof. There is also some evidence that, if cans were displaced near the roof or where the walk was dropped down, a boy of Elmer's size could not well reach or right them without pulling himself up on the frame work of the conveyor. The walk along the conveyor was used also in oiling the rollers upon which the endless cable ran. It appears that Elmer had worked at the plant during the day on July 16, and was put to work in the evening. Soon thereafter, between 8:15 and 8:30 o'clock, he was seen prone, his legs hanging on either side of the conveyor, and his body below the shoulders resting on the power wire mentioned. The wire carried 2,300 volts, and life was extinct. No one saw him as he approached this place, and what led him there must ever remain uncertain. It is obvious from the burns that the electric current grounded through his body coming in contact with the metal conveyor and the power wire. The insulation or covering originally upon this wire was gone, but there is testimony suggesting that the ordinary insulation of wires carrying such voltage, if grounded through a person, would likely not save his life.
The contention of the defendant power company is, first, that there was no negligence on its part proven. We think there was evidence to take the...
To continue reading
Request your trial