Bark v. Dixson

• Decision Date: 07 July 1911
• Docket Number: 17,182 - (178)
• Parties: AUGUSTA BARK v. SAMUEL DIXSON and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

131 N.W. 1078

115 Minn. 172

AUGUSTA BARK v. SAMUEL DIXSON and Another

Nos. 17,182 - (178)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 7, 1911

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $500 damages. The substance of the pleadings is given in the first paragraph of the opinion. The case was tried before C. L Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $300. From an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial defendants appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Tainted food -- evidence.

Evidence considered, and held sufficient to justify the jury in finding that defendants, proprietors of a hotel, furnished to plaintiff, their servant, tainted meat as food, and that this caused her illness.

Admission of evidence.

There were no errors in the rulings on the admission of evidence, or in the charge.

Deutsch, Allen & Breding and Sol. Fligelman, for appellants.

E. R. Lynch and M. A. Jordan, for respondent.

OPINION

BUNN, J.

Defendants are the proprietors of the Majestic hotel, in Minneapolis. Plaintiff, on November 1, 1909, and for some time prior thereto, was employed as a chambermaid in the hotel. She received her board as a part of her compensation. This action was brought to recover damages for an illness suffered by plaintiff, which she claimed was caused by tainted meat furnished her as food by defendants. The complaint alleges in strong terms the decayed and poisonous condition of the meat eaten by plaintiff, and is evidently drawn to fit both the theory of implied warranty and the theory of negligence. The answer was a general denial, with a plea of contributory negligence. The case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict in plaintiff's favor. Defendants appeal from an order denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

It is stated by defendants, and correctly, we think, that it was necessary for plaintiff to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the meat was tainted, and that plaintiff's illness was the result of eating it. Defendants, however, contend that there was no evidence to sustain a finding in plaintiff's favor on either of these questions. It seems to be the opinion of counsel for defendants that, because there was no chemical analysis of the meat or of the waste, there was no proper evidence of its tainted or poisonous condition. But it does not take an...