Borchardt v. Peoples Ice Company
| Citation | 118 N.W. 359,106 Minn. 134 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,929 - (59) |
| Parties | FRANK BORCHARDT v. PEOPLES ICE COMPANY and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $2,000 for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while unloading ice of defendant ice company from a broken and defective car of defendant Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Plaintiff was paid $40 by the defendant ice company and the case was dismissed as to that defendant before the trial. The case was tried before Brill J., and a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's case defendant railway company made a motion to dismiss the action which was granted. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Reversed.
Release -- Contributory Negligence.
The evidence does not conclusively prove that the $40 paid by respondent the People's Ice Company was for the purpose of satisfying appellant's claim for damages on account of personal injuries received while employed by that company in unloading ice from a defective car; nor does it conclusively appear that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence or assumed the risk, in proceeding to remove ice from the car with knowledge that the floor of the car was defective.
Question for Jury.
These questions should have been submitted to the jury, and it was error to dismiss the action.
Godfrey, Molander & Giantvalley, for appellant.
James B. Sheean, for respondents.
At the close of appellant's case the trial court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the action upon the ground that the evidence failed to establish a cause of action against the railway company, that it appeared from the evidence that appellant was guilty of contributory negligence and had assumed the risks and dangers, and upon the further ground that it appeared from the evidence that the People's Ice Company had paid him $40, which he accepted in full satisfaction of any and all demands against that company.
1. Where two or more persons are liable for an injury sustained by a third party, a settlement by the plaintiff with one of the joint tort-feasors inures to the benefit of all who are legally responsible for such injury, and when a plaintiff makes claim in good faith against another for injuries, and accepts compensation and gives satisfaction therefor, all persons against whom suit might be brought for such injuries are released, whether the party with whom the compromise was made could have been legally held in an action for damages or not. These propositions were recognized and applied in the case of Hartigan v. Dickson, 81 Minn. 284, 83 N.W. 1091.
In the present case the ice company and the railway company were named in the complaint as joint tort-feasors; but no cause of action was stated against the ice company. The only cause of action pleaded involved the question of the railway company's liability in furnishing a defective car to the ice company, in which appellant, an employee of that company, received his injuries while unloading ice. After commencement of the action, and before trial appellant, through his attorney, received $40 from the ice company, and a stipulation was entered into between his attorney and the attorney for the ice company in the following language: "It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant The People's Ice Company, that the above-entitled action be and the same is in all things dismissed as to the defendant The People's Ice Company." No release or satisfaction was executed. The evidence does not in any manner implicate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial