Snowberg v. Nelson-Spencer Paper Co.
This text of 45 N.W. 1131 (Snowberg v. Nelson-Spencer Paper Co.) 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.
Opinion
The allegations of this complaint are not so precise and definite as might be desired as to some of the facts, but the pleading will suffice as against a demurrer. There can be no doubt that the defects in the machinery which rendered it dangerous for plaintiff to work with it, and also the danger he was in by reason of such defects, were .known to plaintiff, so that he would be taken to have assumed the risk, were it not for the alleged promise of the defendant to remedy the defects, and its request to plaintiff to continue using the machinery until it should remedy them, bringing the case within the recognized exception to. the general rule that a servant who uses defective machinery, knowing of the defects and the consequent dangers, does so at his own risk. Of course, one who is within .the exception may be so negligent in the use of the machinery [534]*534that any injury to himself will be chargeable in a greater or less degree to his own negligence, in which case he cannot recover. The manner of the injury to plaintiff, as stated in the complaint, is suggestive of this. It alleges, however, that it was necessary for him to do as he did, and in the face of that allegation it cannot be said that contributory negligence appears so that the case ought to be withheld from a jury.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 N.W. 1131, 43 Minn. 532, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snowberg-v-nelson-spencer-paper-co-minn-1890.