Olson v. McMullen

24 N.W. 318, 34 Minn. 94, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 168
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 24, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 24 N.W. 318 (Olson v. McMullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Olson v. McMullen, 24 N.W. 318, 34 Minn. 94, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 168 (Mich. 1885).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

Action for an injury to plaintiff’s person, caused by alleged negligence of defendant. The negligence alleged consisted in this, that the defendant’s foreman, without informing him of the danger, ordered plaintiff, who was in defendant’s employment, and who alleges he was not aware of the danger, and who, by reason of being an ignorant person, unable to speak or understand the English language, was unable to appreciate and understand the danger, into a place of great and extraordinary danger to do his work. The work in which plaintiff was employed was wheeling earth in a wheelbarrow to uncover a stone quarry. He had to wheel the earth along a path two or three feet wide. On one side of it was a precipitous excavation about 15 feet deep; on the other side a bank or wall of earth about 15 feet high, nearly perpendicular, and in some places even overhanging the path. It was in the spring, when the frost coming out of the earth made the earth in the bank or wall more than usually liable to break away and fall upon and over the path into the excavation. As plaintiff, with a wheelbarrow full of earth, was passing along the path, a part of the earth in the wall broke away and fell, striking plaintiff and his wheelbarrow, and throwing them into the excavation, and he was hurt.

Plaintiff had worked in the same place for from one to two weeks before the accident. He appears to be of mature years, and, though perhaps ignorant in some things, of ordinary capacity. He must be presumed to have had the knowledge which common observation forces on the most ordinary intellect, to have known the effect and operation of the law of gravitation and of thawing frost upon a perpendicular bank of earth. He must be presumed to have known that from such causes the earth will break away and fall down, and that the fall must be attended with danger to any one in its way. Walsh v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co., 27 Minn. 367.

As the danger was as well known to him as to the foreman, he must be taken to have assumed the risk and cannot hold others responsible for the consequences.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peterson v. Modjeski
117 N.W.2d 237 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1962)
Dishington v. A. W. Kuettel & Sons, Inc.
96 N.W.2d 684 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)
Blomberg v. Trupukka
299 N.W. 11 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)
Davison v. Ressler
150 N.W. 802 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
Dobreff v. St. Paul Gaslight Co.
149 N.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Dimetre v. Red Wing Sewer Pipe Co.
148 N.W. 1078 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Thomas v. Georgia Granite Co.
79 S.E. 130 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Carney Coal Co. v. Benedict
129 P. 1024 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1913)
Lammey v. Center Coal Mining Co.
123 N.W. 356 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Millen v. Pacific Bridge Co.
95 P. 196 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
O'neil v. Great Northern Railway Co.
112 N.W. 625 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Christienson v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.
74 P. 876 (Utah Supreme Court, 1903)
Oleson v. Maple Grove Coal & Mining Co.
87 N.W. 736 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
O'Niel v. Great Northern Railway Co.
82 N.W. 1086 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Bethlehem Iron Co. v. Weiss
100 F. 45 (Third Circuit, 1900)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hudson
22 Ohio C.C. 586 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1898)
Swanson v. Great Northern Railway Co.
70 N.W. 978 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1897)
Bradley v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
39 S.W. 763 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Erdman v. Illinois Steel Co.
69 N.W. 993 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
Carlson v. Northwestern Telephone Exchange Co.
65 N.W. 914 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.W. 318, 34 Minn. 94, 1885 Minn. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olson-v-mcmullen-minn-1885.