Derringer v. Tatley

• Decision Date: 04 March 1916
• Docket Number: 1915
• Citation: 157 N.W. 811,34 N.D. 43
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

157 N.W. 811

34 N.D. 43

MARTIN DERRINGER, a Minor, by John Derringer, His Guardian Ad Litem, v. HENRY TATLEY

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 4, 1916

Rehearing denied April 27, 1916.

From a judgment of the District Court of Burleigh County, Nuessle J., dismissing this action, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Judgment of dismissal affirmed, with costs.

George M. Register, F. H. Register, and S.E. Ellsworth, for appellant.

The defendant was negligent in the employing of a young incompetent, inexperienced boy, fourteen years old, to run or operate the elevator. This was not only negligence and in disregard of his duties to the public, but a direct violation of the statute of this state. Comp. Laws 1913, § 1412.

Public records kept under the law may be used to impeach the testimony of a witness on the question of his age, and are prima facie evidence of the facts therein recorded. Comp Laws 1913, §§ 7917, 7918, 7919; Miller v. Northern P. R. Co. 18 N.D. 19, 118 N.W. 344, 19 Ann. Cas. 1215; 3 Wigmore, Ev. P 2, §§ 1630, 1633; 1 Greenl. Ev. 16th ed. §§ 483, 484, 493; 1 Whart. Ev. §§ 347, 639; 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 882, 883; 17 Cyc. 306, and cases cited.

In personal injury action the question of the competency of the servant and whether the master was negligent in employing or retaining him with knowledge of his incompetency are questions of fact for the jury, where there is evidence to show such facts. 26 Cyc. 1476; Carlson v. Wilkeson Coal & Coke Co. 19 Wash. 473, 53 P. 725; Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U.S. 454, 27 L.Ed. 605, 2 S.Ct. 932; Southern P. Co. v. Huntsman, 55 C. C. A. 366, 118 F. 412, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 238; Mares v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 336, 21 N.W. 5; Lee v. Michigan C. R. Co. 87 Mich. 574, 49 N.W. 909.

The court erred in admitting evidence over objection, tending to show that some time prior to the accident plaintiff showed evidences of intoxication. No witness pretended to testify as to his condition in this respect at the time he went on duty as a bell boy. Denver Tramway Co. v. Reid, 4 Colo.App. 53, 35 P. 269, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 248; Gove v. Tacoma, 34 Wash. 434, 76 P. 73.

The defense that plaintiff assumed the risk incident to the employment is an affirmative defense, and should be specially pleaded. It can only be available when pleaded. 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 914, and cases cited under note 1; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 844; Mayes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 63 Iowa 562, 14 N.W. 340, 19 N.W. 680; Hulehan v. Green Bay, W. & St. P. R. Co. 68 Wis. 520, 32 N.W. 529; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Orr, 84 Ind. 50; Oregon Short Line & U. N. R. Co. v. Tracy, 14 C. C. A. 199, 29 U. S. App. 529, 66 F. 931; Walker v. McNeill, 17 Wash. 582, 50 P. 518; Faulkner v. Mammoth Min. Co. 23 Utah 437, 66 P. 799; Boin v. Spreckles Sugar Co. 155 Cal. 612, 102 P. 937; Mosher v. Sutton's New Theatre Co. 48 Mont. 137, 137 P. 534; Konig v. Nevada-California-Oregon R. Co. 36 Nev. 181, 135 P. 141; Sankey v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 118 Iowa 39, 91 N.W. 820.

Children after they have passed the age of seven years may be guilty of contributory negligence; but this fact is a question for the jury. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Scott, 111 Ill.App. 234; 29 Cyc. 535, 540, 642 (2) (11), and cases cited; Tucker v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 124 N.Y. 308, 21 Am. St. Rep. 670, 26 N.E. 916; Nagle v. Allegheny Valley R. Co. 88 Pa. 35, 32 Am. Rep. 413; Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co. 18 N.D. 309, 122 N.W. 390; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hardy, 37 C. C. A. 359, 94 F. 294; Washington & D. R. Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401, 21 L.Ed. 114; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Cumberland, 176 U.S. 232, 44 L.Ed. 447, 20 S.Ct. 380; Northern P. R. Co. v. Heaton, 111 C. C. A. 550, 191 F. 24; Shebeck v. National Cracker Co. 120 Iowa 414, 94 N.W. 930.

In the case of a child, it is the duty of the master to see that he does not assume risks outside of the scope of his employment. Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co. 18 N.D. 309, 122 N.W. 390; Thompson v. Johnston Bros. Co. 86 Wis. 576, 57 N.W. 298; Shebeck v. National Cracker Co. 120 Iowa 414, 94 N.W. 932; Murray v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 152 Iowa 732, 133 N.W. 123; Barrow v. B. R. Louis Lumber Co. 14 Idaho 698, 95 P. 682, 26 Cyc. 1454.

Niles & Koffel and Miller & Zuger, for respondent.

The complaint does not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. There is no allegation that the opening in the door of the passenger elevator was dangerous. It may have been so high as to be out of reach of persons standing on the floor, so far as is disclosed by the complaint. 14 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 340, note 1; Peake v. Buell, 90 Wis. 508, 48 Am. St. Rep. 946, 63 N.W. 1053.

Where the facts are clear, and where there is no controversy as to them, and from such facts it clearly appears what course a person of ordinary prudence will pursue under the circumstances, the question of negligence is purely one of law. Fernandez v. Sacramento City R. Co. 52 Cal. 45; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Ryan, 17 Colo. 103, 28 P. 79, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 232; Flemming v. Western P. R. Co. 49 Cal. 253, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 193; Donaldson v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 21 Minn. 293; Brown v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 22 Minn. 165.

A person's youth does not necessarily absolve him from being charged with contributory negligence. Guichard v. New, 9 A.D. 485, 41 N.Y.S. 456.

No actionable negligence on the part of defendant is shown. The injury is wholly the result of plaintiff's negligence. Knapp v. Jones, 50 Neb. 490, 70 N.W. 19, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 306.

"Whenever a copy of a writing is certified for the purposes of evidence, the certificate must state in substance that the copy is a correct copy of the original." The authority of the certifying officer is limited to this. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7920; Sykes v. Beck, 12 N.D. 242, 96 N.W. 844.

The charge of the court did not relate to the assumption of the risk by plaintiff as to dangers inherent in his employment, but as to the assumption of risk relating to his act in protruding his head through the opening in the elevator door. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Depew, 40 Ohio St. 127; Day v. Toledo, C. S. & D. R. Co. 42 Mich. 523, 4 N.W. 203; Mackey v. Newbury Furnace Co. 119 Mich. 552, 78 N.W. 783; King v. Ford River Lumber Co. 93 Mich. 172, 53 N.W. 10; Monforton v. Detroit Pressed Brick Co. 113 Mich. 39, 71 N.W. 586; Borck v. Michigan Bolt & Nut Works, 111 Mich. 129, 69 N.W. 254.

The court's action in directing a verdict for the defendant was proper. The evidence clearly shows that the alleged default of defendant was not the proximate cause of the injury. Grand Forks v. Paulsness, 19 N.D. 293, 40 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1158, 123 N.W. 878; Heckman v. Evenson, 7 N.D. 178, 73 N.W. 427; Morrison v. Lee, 16 N.D. 377, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 650, 113 N.W. 1025; Beleal v. Northern P. R. Co. 15 N.D. 318, 108 N.W. 337, 11 Ann. Cas. 921, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 453; Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co. 18 N.D. 309, 122 N.W. 390; McGinnis v. Canada Southern Bridge Co. 49 Mich. 466, 13 N.W. 819.

Plaintiff's want of ordinary care and prudence was the cause of the injury, and he cannot recover damages. Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127, 21 Am. Rep. 120; Mau v. Morse, 3 Colo.App. 359, 33 P. 283; Omaha Horse R. Co. v. Doolittle, 7 Neb. 481, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 824; Thomp. Neg. § 1104; Ballou v. Collamore, 160 Mass. 246, 35 N.E. 463; Hoehmann v. Moss Engraving Co. 4 Misc. 160, 23 N.Y.S. 787; Bremer v. Pleiss, 121 Wis. 61, 98 N.W. 945, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 275.

Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, however slight, precludes his recovering damages, even though defendant was negligent. Bolin v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 108 Wis. 333, 84 N.W. 446, 81 Am. St. Rep. 911, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 209; Toomey v. Eureka Iron & Steel Works, 89 Mich. 250, 50 N.W. 850; Redmond v. Delta Lumber Co. 96 Mich. 545, 55 N.W. 1004; Mitchell v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 51 Mich. 236, 38 Am. Rep. 566, 16 N.W. 388, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 37; Stern v. Michigan C. R. Co. 76 Mich. 591, 43 N.W. 587; Schindler v. Milwaukee L. S. & W. R. Co. 77 Mich. 136, 43 N.W. 911; Smith v. Peninsular Car Works, 60 Mich. 501, 1 Am. St. Rep. 542, 27 N.W. 662, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 42; Manning v. Chicago & W. M. R. Co. 105 Mich. 260, 63 N.W. 312; Arzt v. Lit, 198 Pa. 519, 48 A. 297; Patterson v. Hemenway, 148 Mass. 94, 12 Am. St. Rep. 523, 19 N.E. 15; Freeman v. Glens Falls Paper Mfg. Co. 70 Hun, 530, 24 N.Y.S. 403; McDonald v. Dutton, 198 Mass. 398, 84 N.E. 434; Ford v. Tremont Lumber Co. 123 La. 742, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 917, 131 Am. St. Rep. 370, 49 So. 492; Pilucki v. Detroit Steel & Spring Works, 117 Mich. 111, 75 N.W. 295; Borck v. Michigan Bolt & Nut Works, 111 Mich. 129, 69 N.W. 254; Monforton v. Detroit Pressed Brick Co. 113 Mich. 39, 71 N.W. 586; Journeaux v. E. H. Stafford Co. 122 Mich. 396, 81 N.W. 258; Thorsen v. Babcock, 68 Mich. 523, 36 N.W. 723; Prentiss v. Kent Furniture Mfg. Co. 63 Mich. 478, 30 N.W. 109; King v. Ford River Lumber Co. 93 Mich. 172, 53 N.W. 10; Jayne v. Sebewaing Coal Co. 108 Mich. 242, 65 N.W. 971; Lendberg v. Brotherton Iron Min. Co. 97 Mich. 443, 56 N.W. 846; Sakol v. Rickel, 113 Mich. 476, 71 N.W. 833; Lamotte v. Boyce, 105 Mich. 545, 63 N.W. 517; Perlick v. Detroit Wooden-Ware Co. 119 Mich. 331, 78 N.W. 127; Juchatz v. Michigan Alkali Co. 120 Mich. 654, 79 N.W. 907; Lindstrand v. Delta Lumber Co. 65 Mich. 254, 32 N.W. 427; Wilson v. Michigan C. R. Co. 94 Mich. 20, 53 N.W. 797; Johnson v. Hovey, 98 Mich. 343, 57 N.W. 172; Melzer v. Peninsular Car Co. 76 Mich. 94, 42 N.W. 1078; Mackin v. Alaska Refrigerator Co. 100 Mich. 276, 58 N.W. 999.

"A bright boy of fourteen years could see and appreciate the danger of being caught by a knife that moved slowly in plain view, as well as could an adult." Malsky v Schumacher & Ettlinger, 7 Misc. 8...