Geiger v. Simpson Methodist-Episcopal Church of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 11 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | 26,679 |
| Citation | 219 N.W. 463,174 Minn. 389 |
| Parties | FREDERICK H. GEIGER v. SIMPSON METHODIST-EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF MINNEAPOLIS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, Baldwin, J. Affirmed.
Finding sustained that defendant's officers were negligent in failing to repair broken caster on piano.
1. The evidence sustains the finding that defendant's officers having charge of the upkeep and repair of its properties, were negligent in failing to have repaired a broken caster on a piano used by it, after having notice of the defect and the tendency of the instrument to tip over by reason thereof on being turned or moved.
In negligence cases churches are properly classed as charitable institutions.
2. Churches organized under the laws of this state and here engaged in the usual religious, benevolent and charitable activities of such organizations are properly classed as charitable institutions in negligence cases.
Such institutions are liable for negligence the same as other corporations.
3. Charitable institutions in this state are liable for the negligence of their officers and employes on the same basis as other corporations and individuals.
Question of contributory negligence for jury.
4. The question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury.
Charities, 11 C.J. p. 375 n. 96.
Negligence, 29 Cyc. p. 621 n. 92; p. 640 n. 13.
Religious Societies, 34 Cyc. p. 1198 n. 28.
See note in 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 556; 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 74; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 62; 14 A.L.R. 572; 23 A.L.R. 923; 30 A.L.R. 455; 33 A.L.R. 1369; 42 A.L.R. 971; 5 R.C.L. 379; 1 R.C.L. Supp. 1382; 3 R.C.L. Supp. 325; 6 R.C.L. Supp. 301.
Merriam & Wright and Cobb, Wheelwright, Hoke & Benson, for Appellant.
Devaney & Edwards and R. V. Gleason, for respondent.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict for $3,000 against the defendant as damages for personal injury, claimed to have been caused by negligence on the part of defendant's officers and agents. Defendant had duly moved for a directed verdict and thereafter moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motions were denied. Judgment was entered, and defendant appealed therefrom.
Defendant is a religious society, a church, incorporated under the laws of this state. It is engaged in the usual benevolent, charitable and religious activities of such a society. It does no business for profit. It is governed by a board of trustees, having general charge of its property, and an official board, consisting of the trustees, the pastor, the heads of the various societies and branches within the church, and certain minor officials and members, having general supervision over the activities and policies of the church.
Plaintiff is a member of this church. At the time of the accident he was a minor official and member of its official board and the teacher and leader of a bible class of young people. The members of this class were having a social meeting, in what is referred to as the dining room, in the basement of the church, and plaintiff was with them as their leader. He attempted to turn or move an upright piano in this room for the purpose to playing upon it for this entertainment. While so doing the piano tipped over and fell upon and broke and otherwise injured plaintiff's leg. The piano was one of a number of such instruments kept and used by the church. It had a broken caster under it at one corner. The evidence sustains a finding that this broken caster caused the piano to tip over. There is evidence that the caster had been in that condition ever since the piano came into the church some six years before; that the caretaker of the church had some trouble in moving the piano soon after it was received and discovered that the caster was broken and that the piano, by reason thereof, had a tendency to tip over on being moved; that he reported the defect and condition of the piano to the trustees, who had general charge of repairs; that the condition of this and other pianos was again reported to the trustees some two years before the accident, and repairs thereto considered; that no repairs were made. Plaintiff testified that he had never examined this piano and did not know that it had a broken caster. Plaintiff claims that the defendant's trustees and officers, having charge of the repair and upkeep of its property, were negligent in failing to have the piano repaired by replacing the broken caster after having notice an knowledge of its defective condition, and that defendant is liable for such alleged negligence.
1.Defendant urges that the evidence does not establish any negligence on its part; that the injury to plaintiff resulted from an "unforeseeable accident;" that a broken caster on this piano was not such a defect that failure to remedy same would be negligence. It invokes the rule, well established in this state, that negligence cannot be predicated upon a particular act or omission, if it could not reasonably have been foreseen under the circumstances that such act or omission would result in injury to anyone; that one is not ordinarily liable for a result which reasonable human care and foresight could not have foreseen and guarded against. The rule has been considered in a number of cases here. Christianson v. C. St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co. 67 Minn. 94, 69 N.W. 640; Wallin v. Eastern Ry. Co. 83 Minn. 149, 86 N.W. 76, 54 L.R.A. 481; Jensen v. Commodore Min. Co. 94 Minn. 53, 101 N.W. 944; Wolfe v. M. St. P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co. 100 Minn. 306, 111 N.W. 5; McDowell v. Village of Preston, 104 Minn. 263, 116 N.W. 470, 18 L.R.A.(N.S.) 190; Kommerstad v. G.N. Ry. Co. 120 Minn. 376, 139 N.W. 713; Prendergast v. C.B. & Q.R. Co. 138 Minn. 298, 164 N.W. 923; Carr v. M. St. P. & S.S. M. Ry. Co. 140 Minn. 91, 167 N.W. 299; Foss v. C.B. & Q.R. Co. 151 Minn. 506, 187 N.W. 609.
In using the pianos in this church they were moved from one room to another as occasion required. Pianos so used are often turned and moved around to be in proper position for use. Casters are placed under the pianos to facilitate such moving. With notice of the broken caster and the tendency of the piano to tip over on being moved, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that it could not reasonably have been foreseen under the circumstances that injury was likely to result to someone moving this piano. It was at least a question of fact for the jury.
2. It is contended that this defendant is a charitable institution, to be classed as a privately conducted charity, and that at the time of his injury plaintiff was one of its members and engaged in and a beneficiary of its activities as such; that charitable institutions so conducted are not liable to a beneficiary for negligence of its officers and servants.
Religious societies, such as this defendant, may properly be classified as charitable institutions. Bruce v. Central M. E. Church, 147 Mich. 230, 110 N.W. 951, 10 L.R.A.(N.S.) 74, 11 Ann. Cas. 150; MacKenzie v. Trustees, 67 N.J.Eq. 652, 61 A. 1027, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 227; Hoeffer v. Clogan, 171 Ill. 462, 49 N.E. 527, 40 L.R.A. 730, 63 A.S.R. 241; Carter v. Whitcomb, 74 N.H. 482, 69 A. 779, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 733; Pennoyer v. Wadhams, 20 Or. 274, 25 P. 720, 11 L.R.A. 210; Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Mott, 7 Paige (N.Y.) 77, 32 Am. D. 613; McAlister v. Burgess, 161 Mass. 269, 37 N.E. 173, 24 L.R.A. 158.
If charitable institutions are held exempt from liability for negligence of their officers and servants, religious societies of this kind should properly come within the same class and rule.
3. Coming to the specific question of the exemption of charitable organizations or institutions from liability for negligence of their officers and servants, we find a great diversity of reasoning and adjudication in the numerous decisions in various states. One line of cases holds that these organizations are wholly exempt from liability for such negligence. Another line of cases, apparently the greater in number, holds that these organizations are exempt from such liability to persons who are recipients of their charity or service, who are beneficiaries to the work carried on by the organization. Many of these cases hold that the organization is liable to third persons, who are not beneficiaries, and to its own hired servants and employes on the same basis as private individuals and business corporations. Some cases hold that hospitals and colleges are liable to patients or students who pay full consideration for their treatment or tuition. Others hold that the fact that payment is so received does not make them liable. In many cases it is stated that such institutions may be held liable for failure to exercise proper care in the selection of officers and servants, and may be held liable for negligently employing incompetent officers and servants, when injury results therefrom.
Different courts give different reasons for the exemption from liability. The following reasons have been given: That the funds of such institutions are held in trust for specific charitable purposes and should not be diverted to pay damages for negligence; that the better public policy is to hold them exempt; that they serve the same purpose as governmental agencies and should come under the same rule; that one who accepts benefits by becoming a patient, student or beneficiary of the institution impliedly consents to hold it exempt or to waive any claim for negligence of its servants; that the doctrine of respondent superior does not apply to them; that their employes are not, in a legal sense, servants of the organization. Other grounds of exemption have been suggested. All of these reasons have been more or less criticized.
Citation of the numerous cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial