Hamilton v. Minneapolis Desk-Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1899
• Citation: Hamilton v. Minneapolis Desk-Mfg. Co., 78 Minn. 3, 80 N.W. 693 (Minn. 1899)
• Parties: HAMILTON v. MINNEAPOLIS DESK-MFG. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

78 Minn. 3

80 N.W. 693

HAMILTON

v.MINNEAPOLIS DESK-MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 9, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Charles M. Pond, Judge.

Action by Sandy Hamilton against the Minneapolis Desk-Manufacturing Company.From an order overruling a demurrer to complaint, defendant appeals.Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1.At common law the owner or occupant of a building owed no duty to keep it in a reasonably safe condition for members of a public fire department who might, in the exercise of their duties, have occasion to enter the building.

2.The constitution provides that ‘no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.’The title of Gen. Laws 1893, c. 7, is ‘An act for the protection of employés.’Held that, though the provisions of the act are broad enough to include firemen of a public department, yet, under the title of the act, it must be deemed one exclusively for the protection of employés.

3.In an action for neglect of duty, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the defendant neglected a duty imposed upon him by statute for the benefit of somebody else, and that such person would not have been injured if the duty had been performed, but he must also show that the duty was imposed for his benefit or was one which the defendant owed him for his protection.Chas. A. Dalby, for appellant.

Geo. W. Meyer, for respondent.

BUCK, J.

The plaintiff was a fireman in the employ of the fire department of the city of Minneapolis, and sustained an injury by reason of his falling through an unguarded elevator shaft in a factory in the possession and control of the defendant, not owned by it, but wherein it carried on the business of manufacturing desks, and to this end operated the elevator in question.The plaintiff entered the building in the discharge of his duty, as a member of said fire department, in response to a call to extinguish a fire originating in said building, and it was while in the discharge of such duty that he was so injured, through the negligence of the defendant in failing and omitting to fence and place guards around or inclose said elevator.The facts were alleged in the complaint, and defendant demurred, on the ground that sufficient facts were not stated to constitute a cause of action, and, this demurrer being overruled the defendant appeals.By the rules of the common law, a fireman going upon the premises of another, under the...