Richard v. Schleusener

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Richard v. Schleusener

42 N.W. 599, 41 Minn. 49, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 265

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 10, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 N.W. 599 (Richard v. Schleusener) 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

Richard v. Schleusener, 42 N.W. 599, 41 Minn. 49, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 265 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

This is an action for damages to plaintiffs’ farm and the property on it, caused by defendant negligently setting fire to dry grass and other combustible material on his farm, from which the wind drove the fire to the farm of plaintiffs. On the trial the court below dismissed the action for insufficiency of the evidence. We think the case ought to have been submitted to the jury. That the defendant caused the fire to be started by his servant is not denied. It was done to protect — from fire, as we understand — certain haystacks of defendant’s that stood on his land, near to plaintiffs’. The evidence of the servant seems to indicate that almost immediately after starting the fire it got beyond his control. This alone, without evidence of some intervening change of conditions to put the [50]*50fire beyond his control, which, in the exercise of proper prudence, he would not have anticipated, would be enough to require that the jury should pass on the question of negligence in setting the fire. But, in addition to that, there was evidence from which the jury might have found that the grass and stubble were exceedingly dry, (the soil itself, even, seems to have taken fire and burned,) and that there was a wind blowing, and from those facts have drawn the conclusion that to start the fire, with insufficient force to take care of it, was an imprudent and dangerous act.

Order reversed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

This is an action for damages to plaintiffs’ farm and the property on it, caused by defendant negligently setting fire to dry grass and other combustible material on his farm, from which the wind drove the fire to the farm of plaintiffs. On the trial the court below dismissed the action for insufficiency of the evidence. We think the case ought to have been submitted to the jury. That the defendant caused the fire to be started by his servant is not denied. It was done to protect — from fire, as we understand — certain haystacks of defendant’s that stood on his land, near to plaintiffs’. The evidence of the servant seems to indicate that almost immediately after starting the fire it got beyond his control. This alone, without evidence of some intervening change of conditions to put the [50]*50fire beyond his control, which, in the exercise of proper prudence, he would not have anticipated, would be enough to require that the jury should pass on the question of negligence in setting the fire. But, in addition to that, there was evidence from which the jury might have found that the grass and stubble were exceedingly dry, (the soil itself, even, seems to have taken fire and burned,) and that there was a wind blowing, and from those facts have drawn the conclusion that to start the fire, with insufficient force to take care of it, was an imprudent and dangerous act.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 599, 41 Minn. 49, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-schleusener-minn-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack