Bunnell v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a carpenter and engaged in building a depot. He, with other carpenters, was employed for this work by John H. Palmer, who acted as foreman, and also assisted in the construction of the depot, and who had been employed for defendant by John J. Palmer, who was “master builder” and “superintendent of construction of buildings on the new lines of defendant,” and whose “duty it was to hire and discharge men.”
Read the full summary
Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant as a carpenter and engaged in building a depot. He, with other carpenters, was employed for this work by John H. Palmer, who acted as foreman, and also assisted in the construction of the depot, and who had been employed for defendant by John J. Palmer, who was “master builder” and “superintendent of construction of buildings on the new lines of defendant,” and whose “duty it was to hire and discharge men.” Plaintiff was engaged in shingling the roof, and was supported by staging built around the depot under the directions of John H. Palmer, when the…
1Opinion of the CourtGiljtllan, C. J.
There is no reason to disturb the verdict in this case. The question to the witness Bichard Trafton — “Should a foreman of a crew of carpenters, engaged in such work as this, be a practical carpenter?” — was, if the matter was one that would require proof at all, a proper question to ask of an expert in the business of a carpenter. The questions to Charles Trafton were as specific as they well could be, and he had shown himself an expert. If objectionable at all, they were not obnoxious to the objections made to them. There was sufficient evidence to go to the jury upon the facts that John H.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Nutzmann v. Germania Life Insurance Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900