Doerr v. Daily News Publishing Company
| Decision Date | 02 February 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,589 - (185) |
| Citation | 106 N.W. 1044,97 Minn. 248 |
| Parties | FRED DOERR v. DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $5,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Brill, J., who directed a verdict in favor of defendant, upon the close of plaintiff's testimony. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Fellow Servants.
When an operator, or pressman, of a printing press, while engaged with his helper in the usual duty of running the machine starts it without giving proper warning to the helper, who by reason thereof is injured by having his fingers drawn between the rollers, the relation between them is that of fellow servants, notwithstanding the helper is under the direction and control of the operator in respect to the running of the press.
Fellow Servants.
The application of the rule is not changed by the fact that such pressman is the foreman of the pressroom, having general charge of the men, and general authority to direct their movements.
C. D. & R. D. O'Brien, for appellant
Lawler & Arnold, for respondent.
Respondent was in possession of two printing presses, and had in its employment two pressmen, Egan and Burns, who were each assisted by one, and sometimes two, helpers. Egan was foreman of the pressroom, with authority to hire and discharge employees, and during his absence Burns was temporary foreman, with the same general powers, including authority to discharge, but not to hire, men. Upon the occasion in question Egan was absent, and Burns was in charge of the pressroom as foreman, and was personally engaged in running one of the presses, with Fred Doerr as helper, and the two had worked together as pressman and helper for more than a year. It was the duty of the helper -- sometimes called "press feeder" -- to insert the paper between the rolls of the machine, which was done with the hands when the press was stationary, and when he had done so he would give a signal to the pressman, who started the press after giving warning that he was about to do so. This action is based upon an injury occasioned by the pressman, Burns, who started the machine before he received the customary signal from the helper, who, as a result, had his fingers caught between the rolls and severely injured. There is no dispute about the facts, and upon motion the trial court directed a verdict for respondent.
The case turns upon whether or not Burns was the fellow servant of his helper. If he was, there is no liability; but, if not then the case should have been submitted to the jury. According to the evidence the helper was under the immediate direction of the pressman. Such was the rule adopted by respondent in its pressroom, and Burns and appellant conducted themselves accordingly; but the duties of each were determined by the circumstances arising from time to time. Their general duties in running the press were well understood, and at the time of the injury both parties were engaged in prosecuting their usual work. The mere fact that one of several employees working together in the same employment for a common master has authority to direct the movements of the others does not, of itself, constitute such employee a vice principal, regardless of other circumstances. In Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212, 42 N.W. 1020, 4 L.R.A. 793, the rule is announced that it is not the rank of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial