Case Name: HANS HAMMERSTAD v. ARROW HEAD STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1936-03-06
Citations: 196 Minn. 561
Docket Number: No. 30,652
Parties: HANS HAMMERSTAD v. ARROW HEAD STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 196
Pages: 561–563

Head Matter:
HANS HAMMERSTAD v. ARROW HEAD STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY.
March 6, 1936.
No. 30,652.
Grant L. Martin, for appellant.
Gleason d Ward, for respondent.
Reported in 265 N. W. 433.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff worked in a factory fronting 'on Broadway, northeast Minneapolis. To the west thereof is defendant's plant. Between the two buildings is an open space of the width of about 150 feet. Part thereof on defendant's land is devoted to railroad tracks and walking and loading platforms. East of the tracks and platforms, the unoccupied land owned by plaintiff's employer was used by plaintiff to park his car. At the time here in question plaintiff had parked his car on his employer's premises about 18 feet east of defendant's loading platform. This platform, as well as the connecting walking platform, restéd on wooden legs. The ground is largely peat. Defendant deposited rubbish to the rear of its plant near the walking platform and also the debris raked out of its furnace for treating steel, when sufficiently cooled. This took several hours. On August 21, 1931, a fire started in this debris pile on defendant's premises and " communicated to the platforms and adjacent property, including plaintiff's car, which was totally destroyed.
This action is to recover for the loss of the car, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence in setting the fire and allowing it to escape. There was testimony given by the defendant's then'foreman showing that the debris raked out of the steel treating furnace had been deposited on the pile wherein the fire started before it had had time to cool off, and that the manager discharged this foreman the next day on account of his negligence in permitting the furnace debris to be dumped before properly cooled. The foreman also testified .that Avhen the fire Avas first observed in the pile and eating into the AAmoden legs of the walking platform he proposed to put it out by going for some buckets of Avater, but the manager, Avho was then there and had called the city fire department, thought it best to await its arrival. It shortly came, but by that time plaintiff's car was in flames. We can hardly conceive how the jury could avoid finding that the fire AAdiich destroyed plaintiff's car was set by the hot furnace debris negligently deposited by defendant's servants on the dump mentioned, and then negligently allowed to escape to adjacent property. The very ground on which the dump and platforms were maintained was of such nature that care was required in keeping it free from fire hazards.
Plaintiff testified that the car, a 1926 Chrysler sedan, was -worth "around $200." He had owned it about one year and a half. It cost him $150 and another car. He had had the motor rebored and provided the car with new pistons and rings, new bearings, connecting rods, new tires, and a new top. A man who had been in the second-hand automobile business and Avho knew and had driA'en plaintiff's car estimated it to be worth $200. Defendant called only one witness to testify as to the value of the car. He had not seen it, but he had 20 years' experience as a dealer in automobiles. He testified that the car Avas worth from $50 to $75. The A'erdict was for $150. No one can in reason find fault with the amount of the A'erdict.
The order denying defendant's motion for a neAV trial is affirmed.