130 Minn. 186 | Minn. | 1915
Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate caused by defendant’s negligence. This appeal is from an order denying defendant’s motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
The defendant, a corporation, on September 20, 1913, conducted a wholesale and retail furniture, stationery, office and bank supplies
The negligence charged by plaintiff was in failing to provide a reasonably safe place wherein to work, neglect to warn of the danger, and fáiling to provide proper means of escape in case fire arose. The defense was denial of negligence, and, affirmatively, contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and negligence of fellow servant.
From the facts recited, and others in the record, we are of the opinion that the defendant’s negligence in permitting men to work in a deep basement surrounded by inflammable material, where gases and vapors from gasolene and benzine might reach a ñame, and where the exit under the permitted conditions might become impeded
Nothing in the evidence requires us to hold, as a proposition of law, that Conley was guilty of contributory negligence or assumed the risk of the dangers from which he perished. It is true that, when he was raking out the ashes in which were live coals, the foreman told him to be careful. But the evidence does not indicate that the fire started from the coals, or that Conley was informed of the danger of gas ignition therefrom.
The contention that the proximate cause of Conley’s death was conclusively shown to be the negligence of a fellow servant, in dumping the gasolene soaked waste in the boiler pit, cannot be sustained.
Error is assigned upon part of the charge. We think the charge, as a whole, very fair to defendant. This applies also to the portion excepted to, provided it is not taken out of its setting.
The damages to the widow and infant of $4,300 cannot be said to be excessive. James Conley was 38 years old, in good health, and supporting his family. To be sure, his vocation was only that of janitor and fireman of heating plants, at the small salary of $11 per week. But where the death is that of the head of the household, damages are not confined strictly to the probable pecuniary contributions to be expected from the deceased. Johnson v. C. A. Smith Lumber Co. 99 Minn. 343, 109 N. W. 810.
The order is affirmed.
On July 17, 1915, the following opinion was filed:
Per Curiam.
The petition for reargument is denied.
However, a correction in the opinion filed should be made wherein it states: “Near the upper part of the stairway were doors, swinging into the basement and kept closed by weights. This impeded a hurried exit.” No door is shown on the plat used at the trial, and from the description by different witnesses the situation in respect to the door or doors is somewhat confused (folios 124 and 334-342
No question as to the statutory duty of providing fire escapes was submitted to the jury nor was it considered by this court to be involved in a determination of the appeal.
See correction on page 190, infra.