Geiss v. Twin City Taxicab Company
| Decision Date | 24 January 1913 |
| Docket Number | 17,889 - (163) |
| Citation | 139 N.W. 611,120 Minn. 368 |
| Parties | F.W. GEISS v. TWIN CITY TAXICAB COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $5,000 for personal injury. The facts are stated in the opinion. The complaint alleged that, in repairing a certain automobile left with defendant for repairs, it was necessary for defendant to take it from its repair shop and use, operate and try out same upon the streets of the city, and accordingly, in process of repairing the automobile defendant operated it upon the public streets of the city negligently and at a negligent, unlawful and high rate of speed against plaintiff, whereby his leg was broken and he was so seriously injured it was necessary to remove him to one of the hospitals of the city for treatment. The answer denied the allegations in the complaint. The case was tried before Dickson, J., who, at the close of plaintiff's case, denied defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff had not proved a cause of action, that the evidence did not show negligence, that it did not show at the time the machine was operated by servants of defendant who were executing their master's business, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,200. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence of servant.
Where a servant, without authority from the master, permits a stranger to assist him in his work for the master, and such stranger, in the presence of the servant and with his consent, negligently does such work, the master is liable for such negligence.
Conduct of counsel.
Remarks of counsel to the jury held not improper.
Damages.
The damages were not excessive.
Henry W. Volk, for appellant.
Allen & Straight, for respondent.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff in being struck by an automobile. The verdict was for plaintiff in the sum of $1,200, and defendant appeals from an order denying its motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
It is conceded on this appeal that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict on the question whether the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the person who was operating the automobile. The principal contention is that defendant is not liable for the negligence of this driver, or chauffeur. The facts bearing upon this question are these:
Defendant was in the business of operating taxicabs in St. Paul, and also repaired automobiles for others. On the day of the accident Connolly and Hildebrand, two employees of defendant had completed repairs on a car belonging to one Printon, and pursuant to custom took the car out on the street preparatory to "trying it out," to ascertain if it had been properly repaired. Defendant's foreman was present when the two men had the car on the street in front of defendant's garage, and instructed them to go to a repair supply shop, while they were operating the car, and procure a piece of pipe to be used in repair work. At this time one Vielleux, who was a taxicab driver in defendant's employ, came to the garage to take out the taxicab which he drove, but this cab had not yet returned to the garage. Connolly and Hildebrand were in the front seat of the repaired automobile, and in the presence of the foreman and with his acquiescence Vielleux got into the rear seat and the automobile went off, with Connolly at the wheel. They stopped at a repair supply shop, and, while Connolly went in for the pipe, Vielleux climbed into his seat and took the wheel. When Connolly came out, he got into the rear seat, and, Vielleux driving, they proceeded to other repair supply shops for the pipe, which they failed to find. It was then suggested that they test the car on the Sixth street hill, and they drove up Sixth street with this object in view; Vielleux operating the wheel, Hildebrand sitting in the front seat beside him, and Connolly in the rear seat. While approaching the hill at a high rate of speed, the car struck plaintiff and inflicted the injuries complained of. As before stated, there is no question here as to the negligent operation of the car, nor is there any suggestion that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
The evidence was clearly sufficient to justify a finding that Connolly and Hildebrand were trying out the car at the time of the accident, and that they were authorized by defendant to do so. Clearly, therefore, if the accident had happened through the negligence of either of these servants, defendant would be responsible. The claim is that Vielleux, through whose reckless driving the accident happened, was not employed or authorized by defendant to drive the car, and therefore that the rule of respondeat superior does not apply. The facts are most peculiar. Vielleux was a servant of defendant, but he was only employed to drive a taxicab, and was not directly authorized by defendant to try out this car. But defendant's foreman knew that Vielleux was in the automobile when it started, and he was permitted by Connolly and Hildebrand to operate it. They were present all the time, and apparently made no effort to prevent Vielleux from acting as chauffeur, or from...
To continue reading
Request your trial