93 Minn. 468 | Minn. | 1904
Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict in the court below, and appealed from an order granting defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff was injured while at work for defendant, hauling earth and leveling a race track being constructed by defendant on a farm owned by him in Scott county. One Griffin was defendant’s foreman in charge of the work, and gave directions to plaintiff and other employees when and where to perform their duties. It became necessary in the course of the work to remove certain trees in the path of the race track, and certain employees were directed by the foreman to undermine one of these for the purpose of removing it with its roots. As plaintiff was passing the point where the tree stood, it fell upon him, seriously injuring his person.
At the conclusion of the trial, defendant moved the court to direct a verdict in favor of defendant on the ground that the evidence failed to establish actionable negligence against defendant. The motion was denied, and the cause submitted to the jury under clear and fair instructions. After verdict for plaintiff, defendant moved in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the same, or for a new trial, on the grounds, (1) that the damages given by the jury were excessive; (2) that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law; and (3) of errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted' to by defendant. The learned trial court denied the motion for judgment, but granted the motion for a new trial, but without assigning grounds or reasons therefor.
As it does not affirmatively appear from the order of the trial court upon what ground the new trial was granted, we cannot assume that it was granted on the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence. Fitger v. Guthrie, 89 Minn. 330, 94 N. W. 888; Smith v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 91 Minn. 239, 97 N. W. 881; Berg v. Olson, 88 Minn. 392, 93 N. W. 309. The only question presented on this appeal is, therefore, whether any errors of law occurred on the trial.which would justify a new trial. The only error complained of
As remarked in Fitger v. Guthrie, supra, it is elementary that, if there be any evidence reasonably tending to support a verdict, it must be sustained, subject to the power of the trial court to set it aside in the exercise of its discretion on the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence. And if in the case at bar there is in the record any evidence reasonably tending to sustain the charge of negligence against defendant, the order of the trial court must be reversed and the verdict of the jury reinstated. It does not appear that the trial court set it aside in the exercise of its discretion. We have examined the record with care, and reach the conclusion that there is evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. The evidence tends to show that defendant was engaged in the construction of a race track; that he had a number of employees, including plaintiff, engaged in that work, under the direction and superintendency of a foreman who had full charge of the work and the employees. It also tends to show that plaintiff was directed by the foreman when and where to perform his work on the occasion in question, and that he was unaware of the dangers to be apprehended from the work of the other employees in their efforts to remove the tree which fell upon and injured him. While the evidence is not strong, it tends to support the verdict of the jury, and is sufficient, within the rules of law applicable to cases presented as this one is, to sustain it.
The facts bring the case within the decision in Borgerson v. Cook Stone Co., 91 Minn. 91, 97 N. W. 734, and Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191, 84 N. W. 739, 85 N. W. 179. It was the duty of defendant to provide plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to perform his labors, and to warn him of dangers and risks unknown to him;, and, as in the case of Perras v. A. Booth & Co., supra, the jury was justified in finding that the foreman in charge of the work was a vice principal, whose duties required him to provide plaintiff
Order reversed, with directions to the court below to render judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.