Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | 27,665 |
| Citation | 229 N.W. 136,179 Minn. 325 |
| Parties | AGNES CHRISTOPHERSON v. CUSTOM LAUNDRY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover damages for personal injuries. The case was tried before Enersen, J of the ninth judicial district acting for a judge of the fourth judicial district. Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,500. Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied and a new trial granted unless plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $2,100, in which case the motion for a new trial was denied. She accepted the reduction, and defendant appealed from the order so made. Affirmed.
Violation of statute causing injury to one for whose benefit enacted.
1. Violation of a statute, resulting as a proximate cause in injury to one for whose benefit the law was enacted, results in liability unless excusable or justifiable; and the burden of proving excuse or justification is on the person or party who has violated the law.
Verdict of defendant's negligence sustained.
2. The evidence presented a question of fact as to defendant's violation of the statute referred to in the opinion, treated as negligence, and the verdict is sufficiently sustained by the evidence.
Objection to misconduct of counsel.
3. Misconduct of counsel in the argument was neither objected to at the time nor presented by any sufficient assignment of error in the motion for a new trial or in the assignments of error here.
No prejudicial error in rulings.
4. Rulings on evidence examined and found not to present reversible error.
Or in charge.
5. Objections to the charge considered and held not well taken.
Appeal and Error, 3 C.J. § 763 p. 862 n. 21; § 1469 p 1336 n. 5.
Evidence, 22 C.J. § 804 p. 714 n. 97; § 1125 p. 922 n. 97.
Master and Servant, 39 C.J. § 1320 p. 1126 n. 5.
Negligence, 45 C.J. § 99 p. 714 n. 93; § 752 p. 1170 n. 20.
See note in 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 345; 22 R.C.L. 206; 3 R.C.L. Supp. 1243; 4 R.C.L. Supp. 1459.
Merriam & Wright, for appellant.
Devaney & Edwards and R. V. Gleason, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, if that be denied, then for a new trial.
The action is one to recover damages for personal injuries, and plaintiff recovered a verdict. The appeal presents the usual two questions: (1) whether the evidence justifies the verdict; (2) whether there were reversible errors on the trial, excepted to and assigned as errors by the defendant so as to be available here.
1. Plaintiff's cause of action is based upon defendant's failure to keep a toilet in its laundry in proper condition, as required by G.S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) §§ 4177 and 4181, charged as negligence in the complaint.
Defendant operates a laundry establishment in Minneapolis. Plaintiff was one of its employes. Her claim and evidence are that she was burned and injured by some caustic solution or acid which splashed upon her person while she was in the toilet provided by defendant for the use of its employes. If her testimony is true, and the jury found it to be true, there was failure on the defendant's part to comply with the sections of the statute cited. There was no testimony as to how or by whom the caustic solution or acid came to be in the place. There was evidence tending to show that the toilet had been and was out of order. Violation of a statute, resulting in injury to one for whose benefit the law was enacted, results in liability, unless excusable or justifiable; and the burden of proving excuse or justification is on the person or party who has violated the statute. Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 206 N.W. 377. See also Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460, 151 N.W. 275; Benson v. Larson, 133 Minn. 346, 158 N.W. 426; Hillstrom v. Mannheimer Brothers, 146 Minn. 202, 178 N.W. 881; Farrell v. G.O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52, 179 N.W. 566; Elvidge v. Strong & Warner Co. 148 Minn. 185, 181 N.W. 346; Cohen v. Silverman, 153 Minn. 391, 190 N.W. 795; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366, 196 N.W. 270.
2. The violation of a statute in such cases is sometimes treated as negligence per se or as constituting negligence as a matter of law. In the court's charge here the statutory duties of the defendant in the matter were given to the jury, and the question of violation thereof was treated as a question of negligence. Defendant could not and does not complain on the ground that the charge was perhaps more favorable to it in that regard than the evidence warranted. We conclude that the evidence fairly presented a question of fact for the jury upon the issue of negligence or violation of the statute and that the verdict is sufficiently sustained thereby. Defendant's evidence to show excuse or justification or want of negligence was not conclusive. The question whether the res ipsa loquitur rule applied is not deemed important.
3. Upon the argument here it is urged that there was misconduct of counsel for the plaintiff in his argument to the jury. The argument was taken down by the reporter and is included in the settled case. An examination thereof shows several improper and unjustifiable statements, which if the question were here for decision might well be held to be prejudicial and such as would justify this court in granting a new trial. But no objections were made at the time to any of these improper statements and no exceptions taken. The only objections made were to a reference to the workmen's compensation law and to an item of damages testified to by plaintiff. Neither of the remarks objected...
To continue reading
Request your trial