106 Minn. 254 | Minn. | 1908
The plaintiff on January 26, 1908, was employed by the defendant as checking clerk of freight at its transfer platform at Redland, in Polk county, this state. .While in the discharge of his duties he received personal injuries, to recover damages for which he brought this action in the district court of the county of Polk. The complaint alleged that the defendant negligently failed properly to light the platform at such transfer station where the plaintiff was required to work, and to furnish proper and sufficient lights for the use of the plaintiff and his co-employees while engaged in checking and transferring freight; that the defendant negligently received for transportation and transfer at such station certain dressed hogs with sharp pointed rings in their noses; and, further, that after dark on the day named, while the plaintiff was discharging his duties in checking freight, one of the defendant’s employees was engaged in moving on a truck one of the hogs, but by reason of insufficient light on the platform and
The first question raised by the assignments of error is whether the defendant, upon the evidence, was entitled to a directed verdict in its favor for the alleged reason that there was no evidence which would sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the platform was not properly or sufficiently lighted and that the negligence of the defendant in this respect was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The defendant urges in this connection that the plaintiff had worked at the same place several years, during which time the system of lighting remained the same; hence he assumed, the risks incident to the defendant’s method of lighting the premises.
There was, however, other evidence tending to support the allegations of the complaint to the effect that the plaintiff, about two weeks before the accident, complained to defendant’s assistant superintendent, who was in charge of the platform, that the lighting facilities thereon were deficient, rendering it unsafe for the plaintiff and other employees of defendant to work on the platform after dark; that the superintendent promised the plaintiff to remedy the defect and to furnish adequate lighting facilities;' and, further, that the plaintiff, in reliance upon the promise, continued his work to the time of his injury. These allegations were denied by the answer. The trial court fully and correctly instructed the jury as to this issue, but the defendant contends that there was no evidence’ to support the alleged promise and reliance thereon. We are of the opinion that there was. The plaintiff testified to the effect that he told the superintendent that “the
In support of its motion for a new trial the defendant urges that the injuries that the plaintiff claims to have sustained as a result of the accident were due to his own negligence in not caring in time for the wound he received; hence the award of damages is excessive, and not sustained by the evidence. There was evidence tending to show that the points of the ring struck the plaintiff’s ankle, which swelled and became stiff, and pained him; that he continued working for a while, until he was unable to walk on account of his ankle and he went to the hospital; that it was some twenty five days before he had a doctor treat his wound; that he sent for one, but he did not come; that the wound was practically healed at the time of the trial but the ankle was still swollen, pained him, and he had difficulty in moving it. His ankle was exhibited to the jury.
The medical testimony was conflicting. On the part of the plaintiff it was to the effect that the plaintiff’s foot was almost immovable at the ankle joint; that the probabilities were that it would remain partly stiff; that the condition of the ankle was due to the wound which the plaintiff received; that it was probable that the hog ring may have had gemís on it; “that it was a sort of blood poisoning.” There was médical testimony on the part of the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff would completely recover from the injury; that it was a matter of conjecture whether, if the wound had been attended to immediately, blood poisoning would not have resulted, but the probabilities were that there would have been none; and, further,
Order affirmed.