Brown v. W. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 484,27 Minn. 162
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN v THE W. & ST. P. R. CO.

27 Minn. 162

6 N.W. 484

BROWNvTHE W. & ST. P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed September 13, 1880.

Appeal from an order of district court, Brown county.

J. M. Thompson, B. F. Webber, and S. L. Pierce, for respondent.

Wilson & Gale, for appellant.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Plaintiff was employed as a section man on the railroad of defendant. One Jacks was employed by it as “road master.” They, with others, were engaged in raising several wrecked freight cars, when plaintiff received a serious injury, by reason, as the complaint alleges, of the negligence, carelessness, and unskilfulness of Jacks. There is no allegation of negligence on the part of defendant in employing Jacks, nor of the use of improper, defective, or insufficient machinery to raise the wreck; and it appears from the evidence, beyond any question, that Jacks was a competent and proper person for the work in which he was engaged, and that the machinery was proper and sufficient. So that plaintiff's claim to recover, rests on the alleged negligence and carelessness of Jacks in the manner of doing or ordering the work. As appears from the evidence, the ordinary duties of section men is, under their foreman, to keep the track within their section in order, and when called on by the road master to assist in raising wrecked cars, even though within another section.

The business of the “road master” is to keep the track in order along the entire line, as we infer from the evidence, including the raising and removing of wrecked cars. For the purpose of performing his duties he has authority over the section men. As to what he shall do, and when he shall do it, he is under the orders and control of the superintendent. He is the overseer of those he calls to assist him. In the manner of working, unless otherwise directed by the superintendent, he is left to his own judgment and discretion. But he has nothing to do with employing or discharging men, or providing machinery or tools to work with. Above him in respect to authority are, first, the superintendent; next, the manager and the president and directors of the company.

That as a general rule the master is not liable to one servant for an injury caused by the negligence of another servant in the same common employment, is held by every court which decides according to the principles of the common law. This court so held in Foster v. The Minn. Cent. Ry. Co. 14 Minn. 360. The rule has strong considerations of public policy as well as private justice to sustain it. In the case of a stranger, the rule respondeat superior applies in all its force. In such case the act of the servant within the scope of his employment, however inferior may be his grade or authority, is the act of the master, and his negligence is the negligence of the master, for the consequences of which the latter is responsible, as he is for his personal act and negligence. The rights of the stranger against the master are not modified by any contract relation. The duties and rights of master and servant, with respect to each other, are controlled by the contract of employment, which impliedly imposes duties and risks upon each. No case, not governed by statute, holds the master liable at all events to a servant injured by the negligence of another servant in the same employment.

No case intimates that the master is an insurer...