Case Name: LENA DAHLY v. W. B. AUXER
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1909-07-09
Citations: 108 Minn. 531
Docket Number: Nos. 16,199—(165)
Parties: LENA DAHLY v. W. B. AUXER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 531–531

Head Matter:
LENA DAHLY v. W. B. AUXER.
July 9, 1909.
Nos. 16,199—(165).
Action in the district court for Clay county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries sustained while assisting in repairing a mangle in defendant’s laundry by removing the cloth therefrom and replacing it with other covering.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff was under eighteen years of age, inexperienced in making such repairs, and while so engaged Alma Moe, who was in charge of the mangle and a vice principal of defendant, without notice to plain-' tiff negligently put the machine in motion whereby plaintiff’s right hand was caught and held at least fifteen minutes in the machine until released, whereby the hand became disfigured and useless. The answer alleged want of ordinary care on the part of plaintiff.
The ease was tried before Baxter, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,500. Prom an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed.
Affirmed.
Robert M. Pollock, George B. Perley and George 8. Grimes, for appellant.
Rye ci Dosland, for respondent.
Reported in 122 N. W. 1135.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This record raises no questions which require extended consideration by this court. The respondent was injured while in the employ of the defendant, working in and about a mangle. In an action for damages she recovered a verdict for $1,500, and the appeal is from an order denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial. The record contains no prejudicial error.
The case is affirmed upon the authority of Cody v. Longyear, 103 Minn. 116, 114 N. W. 735; Dizonno v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 103 Minn. 120, 123, 114 N. W. 736; Lohman v. Swift & Co., 105 Minn. 148, 117 N. W. 418; Doerr v. Daily News Pub. Co., 97 Minn. 248, 106 N. W. 1044.
Order affirmed.