Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co.
| Citation | 193 N.W. 449,155 Minn. 293 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23,374,23,375 |
| Parties | JERRY ZNIDERSICH v. MINNESOTA UTILITIES COMPANY; JERRY ZNIDERSICH, AS FATHER OF FRANK ZNIDERSICH v. MINNESOTA UTILITIES COMPANY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Two actions in the district court for St. Louis county, one by the father to recover $1,269, and the other to recover $10,000 in behalf of the minor. The cases were tried together before Hughes, J., and a jury which returned verdicts for $277 and $2,812.50, respectively. Defendant's motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts were denied. From the judgments entered pursuant to the verdicts, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Owner of dangerous appliances attractive to young children liable.
1. The rule that one who keeps and maintains upon his premises dangerous instrumentalities likely to attract children of tender years in play is liable to a child thus attracted and injured, followed and applied.
Rule applied when situated on a highway.
2. The rule has greater merit as applied to alluring and attractive instrumentalities maintained upon a public street or highway and readily accessible to children without trespassing upon private inclosed premises.
Applied to poles carrying uninsulated electric wires.
3. It applies to poles placed and maintained in a public highway adjoining an unfenced tract of land used as play ground for children, upon which are strung heavily charged uninsulated electric wires at the top, the poles being equipped with permanent contrivances serving the purpose of a ladder for climbing the same, and being out in the open and in no way guarded or otherwise protected from free interference by children or others.
Verdict sustained.
4. The evidence supports the verdict.
Hoke Krause & Faegre and Tracy J. Peycke, for appellant.
Giblin & Manthey, for respondents.
These two actions, one by the father for expense incurred for medical and hospital treatment of his minor son for injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, the other by the father in behalf of the son, were consolidated and tried together in the court below with a verdict for plaintiff in each. Defendant subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts, which was denied. Judgment was rendered on the verdicts from which defendant appealed.
The only question presented is whether the evidence made a case for recovery by plaintiff within the rules of law applicable to the facts. We answer it in the affirmative and in harmony with the verdict of the jury.
It appears that defendant owns and maintains a line of electric transmission extending between certain towns and villages in the northern part of the state, consisting of wires strung in midair on poles some 30 feet high; the wires being charged with different degrees of electrical energy in transmission from place to place. The line as here involved extends along a public highway, traveled and used by the public generally, and the poles supporting the wires stand on the south line of the roadway. The line passes what is termed in the record as the "Spruce location," indicative of the presence of mining operations. A number of people, including children, reside at the place. Near the location and adjoining the highway on the south is a 5-acre tract of unoccupied land, much used by children of the vicinity as a playground. On the day here in question, plaintiff, a boy of 12 years of age, was upon and about this playground, with other boys of about the same age, flying a kite as a method of amusement. The kite got away from him and was taken by the wind toward the line of electric wires; the string attached thereto being caught in the topmost of the wires, at a point immediately above and in line with the pole to which they were attached. It could be recovered only by climbing the pole to the top and there releasing it from the wire. This plaintiff attempted; he climbed the pole and in reaching his hand and arm between the heavily charged wires, which were uninsulated, received a charge of electricity causing the injuries of which complaint is here made.
As already stated the pole was in the highway immediately adjacent to the playgrounds, which were not fenced. It was supplied with facilities for climbing the same by workmen in the employ of defendant, in the shape or form of iron pegs driven into each side a given distance apart, from near the ground to the cross-bars holding the wires in place, thus forming...
To continue reading
Request your trial