Erickson v. St. Paul City Railway Company

• Decision Date: 29 November 1918
• Docket Number: 21,038,21,046
• Citation: 169 N.W. 532,141 Minn. 166
• Parties: GILBERT E. ERICKSON v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; THOMAS O'MALLEY v. SAME
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

169 N.W. 532

141 Minn. 166

GILBERT E. ERICKSON v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; THOMAS O'MALLEY v. SAME

Nos. 21,038, 21,046

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 29, 1918

Two actions in the district court for Ramsey county to recover for personal injuries received when a motor truck upon which plaintiffs were riding collided with defendant's street car. The answer alleged negligence on the part of plaintiff. The cases were tried separately before Brill, J., who denied defendant's motions for directed verdicts, and a jury which returned a verdict of $300 in the Erickson case and a verdict of $2,500 in the O'Malley case. From orders denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Workmen's Compensation Act -- accident arising out of employment.

1. Where a workman has completed his day's work and has left the premises where he was employed and is not then engaged in performing any service of his employment and meets with an accident, he is not within the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Negligence -- question for jury.

2. There was sufficient evidence tending to show negligence on the part of defendant to make a question for the jury.

W. D Dwyer and C. D. O'Brien, for appellant.

P. J McLaughlin, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Both these actions arose out of the same accident and rest upon the same state of facts and present the same questions. They were tried separately in the district court, but were argued and submitted together in this court. In both cases the plaintiff recovered a verdict and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Our observations apply equally to both cases.

The questions presented are: (1) Whether the facts bring the cases within the Workmen's Compensation Law; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of negligence on the part of defendant.

1. Defendant asserted in its answer that the cause of action came within and is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that a common law action for damages will not lie. By consent the parties tried this issue to the court as a preliminary proceeding before beginning the trial of the case proper, and the court ruled that the case was not within the compensation law. Defendant urges this ruling as error.

The plaintiffs were employees of the Northern States Power Company and members of a crew engaged in maintaining, altering and repairing its power lines in and near the city of St. Paul. The crew went whereever their services were needed and when they had completed the work at one point would proceed to another. The company provided an auto truck with a driver on which the tools and materials used by the crew were carried, and upon which the members of the crew rode when moving from one point on the line to another. The company did not convey the members of the crew to the place of work in the morning, nor return them to their homes at night. The truck was kept near the residence of its driver on Rice street and proceeded from there in the morning and returned there at night. Members of the crew going in the direction traveled by the truck were at liberty to ride on it if they wished, and availed themselves of this privilege whenever they found it convenient to do so. On the day of the accident they were at work on Prior avenue a short distance north of University avenue, and in order to complete the job had worked until nearly 10 o'clock in the evening, several hours later than the usual quitting time. The foreman then announced that the work was finished and directed the men to report at another location in the morning. Two of the men had departed previously; the others, including the plaintiffs, got on the truck which proceeded south along Prior avenue to University avenue where it collided with one of defendant's street cars. The injuries for which plaintiffs seek to recover were sustained in this collision.

The Workmen's Compensation Law in section 8203, G.S. 1913 provides compensation for injuries, "arising out of and in the course of employment," and in subdivision (i) of section 8230, G.S. 1913, declares that this provision is "not to cover workmen except while engaged in, on, or about the premises where their services are being performed, or where their service requires their presence as a part of such service at the time of...