Carlson v. Minneapolis Street Railway Company
| Decision Date | 20 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,273 |
| Citation | 173 N.W. 405,143 Minn. 129 |
| Parties | GUSTAVE A. CARLSON v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $3,659.13 damages awarded Dorothy Rapley, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the death of her husband while in the employ of plaintiff. The answer admitted that one Charles J. Rapley was injured by colliding with a street car of defendant, but denied that the collision occurred as alleged in the complaint and denied that it was caused by any negligence on the part of defendant. The case was tried before Fish, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict and a jury which returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Workmen's Compensation Act -- employer's right of subrogation.
1. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, chapter 467, p 765, Laws 1913, the employer's right to recover the amount which he was compelled to pay to his employee's dependents from a third party, whose act was the cause of the accident, depends upon whether the negligence of such third party was the proximate cause of the injury.
Workmen's Compensation Act -- election of remedy by injured employee.
2. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where an employee is injured in the course of his employment by the actionable negligence of a third party, a statutory remedy accrues to him or his dependents for compensation against his employer, and a common law remedy against such third party, though he cannot proceed against both. If he elects to pursue the former remedy, he waives the latter, and his employer is subrogated to the right.
Olof L. Bruce, John Lind and A. T. Larson, for appellant.
R. T. Boardman and W. D. Dwyer, for respondent.
Plaintiff was engaged in the scavenger business in the city of Minneapolis. Charles J. Rapley was employed as one of his teamsters, and during the early morning of June 30, 1915, while in the performance of his duties, he dumped a load of waste into the river below the Washington Avenue bridge, and then started on his way home. He drove up the incline from the river and along Twenty-first Avenue south to its intersection with Washington Avenue. As he turned to the east to cross the bridge, one of defendant's street cars approached and struck the left wheel of the wagon, throwing Rapley from his seat on the wagon to the pavement, thereby injuring him so that he died within a short time. At the time of the accident, deceased, the appellant and respondent were all subject to the provisions of chapter 467, p. 675, Laws 1913, the Workmen's Compensation Act. Rapley left surviving him Dorothy, his wife, and several minor children, as dependents. Mrs. Rapley proceeded against the appellant under the Compensation Act. She recovered at the rate of $10.80 per week for the period of 300 weeks, beginning July 14, 1915, and in addition thereto the sum of $100, funeral expenses. The proceedings were reviewed by this court, the judgment affirmed, and appellant paid the sum of $3,340 thereon.
The plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant in the present action, under the Compensation Act, the amount which he was so compelled to pay upon the judgment referred to, with costs and expenses. At the trial the court submitted to the jury, whether negligence on the part of the defendant, or its employees, caused the collision which resulted in the injury and death of Rapley. The jury found that there was no neglect on the part of the defendant or its employees. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law. The motion was denied. Plaintiff then moved the court to proceed with the trial and for judgment in his favor. This motion was denied, judgment entered in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
It is alleged in the complaint that, while in the course of his employment as plaintiff's teamster, Charles J. Rapley was driving across the defendant's track at the intersection of Twenty-first Avenue and Washington Avenue south, in the city of Minneapolis, the defendant company so carelessly and negligently ran and operated one of its street cars that it struck the wagon belonging to plaintiff, in which Rapley was then riding, with such force that the driver was thrown therefrom to the pavement and so...
To continue reading
Request your trial