St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-12
AFTER BURNS.
A Suit Against a Minneapolis Com
tractor for $4,000.

AS stated i'm the GLOBE, the Trades and
Labor Assembly of Minneapolis some time
ago decided to aid Thomas Mulyahill, the
workman who was 50 cruelty injured by the
sewer explosion on Second avenue north,
in bringing an action for damages against
John Burns, the contractor, to whose al
legged carelessness the accident is thought
TO be due. c. ii. Benton has been en-
ployed to prosecute the case, and vigorous
effort will be made to secure for Mulyahill,
who has lost his eyesight, such damages as
his terrible affection merits. The following
allegations are made in the complaint
which has been drawn up for service:
MAY %, 1885, the defendant, John Burns,
undertook. i'm accordance with a contract
with the city. the work of eNcavating
sewer Oh Washington avenue north, FUR
nishing all the tools. materials and ma
chinery. The plaintiff, Thomas Mulvahill,
was employed by the defendant as COM
mon laborer:~ the defendant in his business
of excavating for the sewer, undertook,
with gunpowder and blasting powder, to
blast and remove rock. whereupon, because
of the dangerous character of the work, 1t
became his duty to employ men TO use and
burn the powder who had experience and
skill in its use: and that this the defendant
carelesSly. negligently refused and neglected
to do: said defendant also neglected to fur
nsh suitable tools, implements or materials
| therefor.
Nav %. 1885, the defendant loaded four
holes. which had Heretofore, under his
directions. been drilled in the rock for that
purpose, each with a charge of gunpowder
| and bv means of Il fuse fired the same, in
order 10 explode the powder and blast the
rock.
That the defendant, in loading such holes
and fixing the blasts careleSSly and negli-
gently. used unsuitable tools, implements
and fuse.
That the defendant also improperly
loaded the holes by placing therein an over
charge.
That. because of the improper. unsafe
and unsuitable materials and implements
used. and also because Of the careless and
negligent manner in which he loaded, placed
and fired said blasts, each charge of powder
was liable to hang fire, and one of them did
hang fire. and did not explode until plain
tiff had returned to said excavation and had
commenced to drill anew the hole in which
it was placed.
That. after defendant fired said blasts, all
exploded except one, which did not at first
explode. because of the wrongful acts and
omissions of the defendant, whereupon the
defendant, while fire still hung therein,
wrongfully required and compelled the
| plaintiff to return into said excavation and
commenced to drill anew the hole in which
the meXploded charge still remained, which
work was dangerous and unsafe, and known
to be so by defendant and not known TO be
so by plaintiff.
That he, the plaintiff, under the direc-
tons of defendant, not knowing that the
defendant in loading said hole had used
the improper and unsafe tools, materials
and fuse, and not knowing that there was
fire still remaining in said fuse and hole
which was liable TO burn and explode the
remaining charge of powder, but supposing
that the hole was properly loaded, time
enough having passed if it had been prop
erly loaded for the fire to go out, and not
knowing the danger of attempting TO drill
in the said hole, commenced this work as
required of him as above stated. That
while he was engaged at the said work.
without any fault on his part, and solely
because of the fault of defendant, the
charge exploded, throwing stone, fire, pow.
der and other materials upon plaintiff anC
into his face and eyes. That he was theT
and there by said explosion cut anC
: burned on his hands and face
his flesh being cut. torn and burned. hi,
, ewes and eNe-DallS cut ana wholly destroyed
, and lost beyond restoration orrecovery, anC
: he was otherwise bruised, wounded and in
iured, which injuries have already and will
. always cause him pain and suffering, anC
: which injuries are permanent, so that b,
2 can never be cured or restored to sight; tina
because of these injuries he is and Away.
will be totally blind.
! That he has already been put to the ex
! pense of 5000, and has been and still is sicl
and unable to work, and has lost anC
always will lose his time, and has beer
otherwise damaged in the further sum o
$40. 600. and that although often demanded
defendant has never paid plaintiff anythin!
therefor.
Wherefore plaintiff demands 1udgmen
herein against defendant for the sum o
{ $50, 600, together with interest, costs ant
disbursements.