St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-03
THE NEULVAHILL CASE.
The Jury Unexpectedly Returns
VerdicI Snr IaefnnGnnI.

Ehe jury Unexpectedly Returns q
Verdict S0r Defendant.
The Mulvahill damage suit before Judge
Koon in tile district court was yesterday
concluded, and, to the general surprise OF
all who have watched the case, verdict
for the defendant John Burns, was re-
turned. The action has attracted more than
ordinary notice. as involving certain queS-
tons as to the protection OF lie ana ImD,
which the laws of Minnesota are supposed
to cover. Fully a score OF deaths have oc-
Cured this wear in Minneapolis from what
the woriingmen of the city regard as negli-
gence. In this case the plaintiff, a common
laborer. was employed by contractor upon
the work of eXcavating a public sewer.
In order to expedite the work con-
siderable blasting was done. One
day last summer four blasts were set, but
only three exploded, According to the
testimony Mulvahill was set to work by the
contractor to remove the charge of powder
from the supposed defective blast, and
while thus engaged an explosion occurred,
which burned his face and arms frightfully,
and also totally destroyed his eyeSignt. AS
the use Of explosives for eXcavating pur-
poses is quite common, it is generally re-
garGed that the lives of nearly all laboring
men employed upon this class OF work are
je0pardized. Mulvahilrs suit to recover
$50, 900 damages has therefore been re-
garded as Il test case. The verdict for the
defendant will be taken as meaning
that the laws of the state do not compel the
contractor or master to become responsible
for the safety of his servants to a sufficient
degree, and it is understood that the labor
organizations of Minneapolis, through their
Trades and Labor ASSEMBLY, will endeavor
to secure the enactment by the next legisla
ture of laws which will require contractors
and other employees to pay more careful at
tentiOn to the safety Of the human beings
that are compelled for livelihood to work
under them.
THE TESTIMONY
for the plaintiff in the MuIyahilI case sub
mitted on Friday, has already appeared in
the GLOBE. Yesterday was de-
voted to the reception of evidence
from the defense, and the following
witnesses We're examined: Edward Holes
worth, Edgar To!son, Peter Garvey, Joseph
Baxter, Joseph q. DeWyTe, Patrick Finn,
Harry Downs, Michael Buckley, E. f.
Wheeler About o'clock in the afternoon
the defense rested, and the argument was
commenced. j. G.Woolley for the defense
made an able argument, and was followed
by c. II. Benton for the prosecution, who
presented the plaintiffs side in an able
manner Judge Koon. in his charge, said
that if the accident resulted through negli-
gence on the part of the defendant
there was a foundation for liability. He
gave the legal definition of negligence as
meaning a lack of ordinary care. He held
that an employer is bound to exercise rea-
sOnable diligence and care in protecting
the lives OF men working under him,
This case must be measured by the nature
OF the work, the difficulties and RESPONSE
bilitieS. While not bound to keep abreast
with the latest Improvements, still a con-
tractor should not use tools or appliances
which are understood to carry with them a
degree of danger recognized as eXtraOrdi-
nary. If, also, by the exercise of ordinary
diligence he might know that these tools
are dangerous the law preSumes that he
does know this and holds him response
bic to this degree. In summarizing the case
ne said the jury should determine whether
the defendant Burns was or was not guilty
of negligence. from which the accident re-
resulted: whether the fuse he used was such
that contractors ordinarily would regard as
liable to hang fire; whether the "tamping''
iron was a proper tool and whether he
waited sufficient and proper
time for the blast to explode
The jury after being out two hours re-
turned a verdict for the defendant. This
was quite a surprise for those who have
listened to the testimony and the argu-
ments. Attorneys and court attaches when
asked their opinion marked the probable
verdict for the plaintiff all the way from
So, 600 to SIS, 600.