Ellegard v. Acklund
| Decision Date | 02 June 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 715,43 Minn. 352 |
| Parties | ELLEGARD v ACKLUND. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appeal from district court, Freeborn county; FARMER, Judge.
John Anderson and John Whytock, for appellant.
Morgan & Trask and D. F. Morgan, for respondent.
The only point made by appellant is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to charge him with the negligence of his son in setting the fire which destroyed plaintiff's property. There was enough to show that the son was employed by him, not merely to do some one specified thing, as to plow a particular field, but as a general farm hand, and that within the scope of his employment was to do the grubbing, to facilitate which he set the fire. Where a master authorizes his servant to work for him, the former is liable for injury to another caused by the latter's negligent manner of doing the work, or by some negligent act of his done in the course of and for the purpose of performing the work, even though the master may have forbidden him to be negligent, or to do the negligent act. Authority to the servant to be negligent is not required to make the master liable. The evidence was sufficient. Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lesch v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...was apparently within the scope of such servants' agency. Mulvehill v. Bates, 31 Minn. 364, 17 N. W. 959,47 Am. Rep. 796;Ellegard v. Ackland, 43 Minn. 352, 45 N. W. 715;Brazil v. Peterson, 44 Minn. 212, 46 N. W. 331;Smith v. Munch, 65 Minn. 256, 68 N. W. 19. The order of the trial court is ......
-
Kiser v. Skelly Oil Co.
...thereto with such care and discretion that the employer's customers will not suffer from their negligence. In Ellegard v. Nels Ackland, 43 Minn. 352, 45 N.W. 715, where the action was for damages sustained as the result of fire negligently kindled by defendant's son while engaged in an adjo......
-
Weber v. Lockman
...held not to excuse a master from responsibility for the negligence of his servants. Cosgrove v. Ogden, 10 Am. Rep. 361;Ellegard v. Ackland (Minn.) 45 N. W. 715;Fitzsimmons v. Railway Co. (Mich.) 57 N. W. 127;Cleveland v. Newsom (Mich.) 7 N. W. 222. The same principle applies to what occurre......
-
Seybold v. Eisle
...in so doing was to their minds in furtherance of their master's business. At least a jury was warranted in so finding. Ellegard v. Ackland, 43 Minn. 352, 45 N. W. 715. The case was clearly for a jury, and the trial court was in error in directing a verdict. The case must be reversed and rem......