Case ID: minn_110/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Start, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALBERT J. RICKERS v. MISSION FURNITURE COMPANY and Others.
    
    February 11, 1910.
    Nos. 16,419—(217).
    Unguarded Machinery — Evidence.
    The plaintiff was injured while operating an unguarded circular saw in the defendant’s factory. Held, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the jury that it was practicable to guard the saw, and that the plaintiff was in the line of his duty when injured by it.
    Action in the district court for Hennepin county against the Mission Furniture Company, a corporation, Samuel H. Davis as an individual and as trustee in bankruptcy of the corporation, to recover $15,000 damages for personal injuries received in using an unguarded and defective saw in the factory of defendant corporation. Samuel H. Davis, individually and as trustee, answered. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., and a jury wbicb rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,000. Defendant trustee’s motion for judgment non obstante was denied, Simpson, J. From tbe judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, Samuel H. Davis, as trustee, .appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Morton Barrows, for appellant.
    
      James R. Hickey and Martin & Lemon, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 124 N. W. 641.
    
   Start, C. J.

On January 24, 1908, tbe plaintiff, an employee of tbe defendant lost a part of bis right band while operating an unguarded circular saw in defendant’s factory at St. Anthony Park. This action was brought by tbe plaintiff in the district court of tbe county of Hennepin to recover damages from tbe defendants for such injury, on tbe .ground that they were negligent in not guarding tbe saw. Two primary questions of fact were submitted to tbe jury by tbe trial court, namely: Was it practicable to guard tbe saw? Was tbe plaintiff a volunteer, working outside tbe scope of his authority, in using tbe saw? Tbe defendant Davis at tbe close of tbe evidence moved tbe court for a directed verdict in bis favor, on the ground that there was no evidence wbicb would justify a finding by the jury in favor of tbe plaintiff on either question. Tbe motion was denied, cause submitted to tbe jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff for tbe sum of $1,000. Tbe defendant Davis moved for judgment non obstante, which was denied, and judgment entered upon tbe verdict, from wbicb tbe defendant appealed.

The appeal presents only the questions of fact, whether there was any evidence fairly tending to show that it was practicable to guard the saw, and that in using it the plaintiff was in the line of bis duty, and not a mere volunteer. If the evidence failed as to either point, the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict; for the burden was upon the plaintiff to show that it was practicable to guard the saw, and also that be was acting in the line of his duty when he was injured by it.

An examination of the record discloses evidence fairly tending to show that it was practicable to guard the saw, and that the plaintiff was in the line of his duty in using it, and leads to the conclusion that the verdict is sustained by the evidence. It will serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.