Campbell v. Northern Pacific R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1892 |
| Citation | 53 N.W. 768,51 Minn. 488 |
| Parties | Frances M. Campbell v. Northern Pacific R. Co. et al |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Argued by appellant, submitted on brief by respondent October 26 1892
Appeal by defendants, Northern Pacific Railroad Company and Northern Pacific Beneficial Association, from an order of the District Court of Crow Wing County, Holland, J., made March 5, 1892 overruling their demurrers to the complaint.
The plaintiff, Frances M. Campbell, complained that on January 15, 1892, at Brainerd, one John McGregor, a physician employed by the above-named defendants, did maliciously strike, beat and bruise her, another servant, while both were in the performance of their several duties at a hospital caring for the injured, brought in from a railroad accident. The complaint further stated that his acts done while in the performance of his duty as a physician were the acts of his principals, and that he was then and there a vice principal.
For a second count the plaintiff complained that on the next day McGregor, while in the performance of his duty, called her a slut, a sneak, an eavesdropper and liar and threatened to have her arrested. She alleged her damages to be $ 2,000, for which sum she demanded judgment. The defendants demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as against either of them. The demurrers were overruled, and defendants appeal.
Order reversed.
John H. Mitchell, Jr., Tilden R. Selmes and Leon E. Lum, for appellants.
The complaint does not allege that the defendant companies did the acts, or caused them to be done, or that they either sanctioned or ratified them, and the only question presented for consideration is, whether the authority of McGregor as agent of the defendant companies to do the acts charged, is sufficiently alleged or shown by the complaint. The commission of the tortious act must be within the scope of the agency and the exercise of the duties in which the agent is employed. A principal cannot be held liable for the unauthorized, willful or malicious act or trespass of his agent. It is not sufficient to hold a principal liable for a wrong or trespass committed by one of its employes upon another, that the offender occupies a superior position to or in control of the injured party, even though the wrong be committed while the agent is in the discharge of his duties. The wrongful act must be within the scope of his employment, and legitimately and directly in the furtherance of the business of the principal which he is authorized to do, otherwise the principal is not liable. Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343; Richmond Turnpike Co. v. Vanderbilt, 1 Hill, 480; S. C. in error, 2 N.Y. 479; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Glynn v. Houston, 2 M. & G. 337; Helfrich v. Williams, 84 Ind. 553; Fraser v. Freeman, 43 N.Y. 566; Wood v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 52 Mich. 402; Golden v. Newbrand, 52 Iowa 59; Mali v. Lord, 39 N.Y. 381; Church v. Mansfield, 20 Conn. 284; Howe v. Newmarch, 12 Allen, 49.
True & Wetherby, for respondent.
The complaint avers that McGregor was one of the authorized stewards, physicians and surgeons of appellants, and that all acts done by him were done in the line of his duty, and were the acts of his superiors, and that McGregor was the vice principal of appellants in all the acts, matters and things stated in the complaint. The ultimate facts in the relation of principal and agent, are all that need be alleged. Ellegard v. Ackland, 43 Minn. 352; Lee v. Lord, 76 Wis. 582; Eviston v. Cramer, 57 Wis. 570; Tierney v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., 33 Minn. 311; Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N.Y. 46.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial