Campbell v. N. Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 768,51 Minn. 488
• Parties: CAMPBELL v NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ET AL., (TWO CASES.)
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 488

53 N.W. 768

CAMPBELLvNORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ET AL., (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 5, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where a physician and surgeon employed by a railway company to attend to sick and injured persons committed to his charge is alleged to have willfully and maliciously assaulted an assistant, it is presumptively an independent tort, for which the master is not liable, and a bare statement or allegation that it was done in the course of his employment, and while in the discharge of his duty, is insufficient, by itself, to charge the master with liability.

Appeal from district court, Crow Wing county; HOLLAND, Judge.

Action by Frances M. Campbell against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and others and the Northern Pacific Beneficial Association for assault and battery. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint the Northern Pacific Beneficial Association appeals. Reversed. Same against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company and others for slander. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed.

J. H. Mitchell, Jr., Tilden R. Selmes, and Leon E. Lum, for appellants.

True & Wetherby, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendant Northern Pacific Beneficial Association is alleged in the complaint to be an agency of the defendant railway company for the care of persons injured in the operation of the railroad. The defendant McGregor was one of the physicians and surgeons employed for such purpose, having the charge and oversight of this special service, and was the representative of the association and railway company in and about the same. The plaintiff also alleges that while the defendant McGregor was so in the line and in the course of the discharge of his said duty as such authorized agent and servant of said association and of said railway company as aforesaid, and on, to wit, January 18, 1892, in said county, said defendant McGregor did willfully and maliciously assault said plaintiff, and then and there strike, beat, bruise, and batter, insult, and injure the plaintiff, for which she claims damages. She also sets up a cause of action for alleged defamatory and slanderous language used by McGregor in the course of his employment of and concerning the plaintiff. To these separate causes of action the defendant interposed demurrers, which were overruled by the court, and this appeal brings before us the sufficiency of the complaint. The nature...