Hansman v. W. Union Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21369.,21369.
• Citation: 144 Minn. 56,174 N.W. 434
• Parties: HANSMAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

144 Minn. 56

174 N.W. 434

HANSMAN

v.WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. et al.

No. 21369.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 24, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; C. W. Stanton, Judge.

Action by Margaret R. Hansman against the Western Union Telegraph Company, the Northwestern Telephone Exchange Company, and J. E. Treat. Verdict directed for defendant Western Union Telegraph Company, and verdict found against the Northwestern Telephone Exchange Company, and from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial, it appeals. Order affirmed.

Brown, C. J., and Holt, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

A lessor who leases property with a covenant to keep it properly heated is liable to an employé of his tenant for a negligent failure to heat properly-following Glidden v. Goodfellow, 124 Minn. 101, 144 N. W. 428, L. R. A. 1916F, 1073.

The evidence sustains a finding that the defendant telephone company negligently failed to heat properly premises leased to the telegraph company in the employ of which the plaintiff was.

The evidence does not require a finding that the plaintiff was at fault in caring for herself or in remaining at work under the conditions to which she was subjected while working for the telegraph company so as to prevent a recovery from the telephone company for its negligent failure to heat.

The evidence sustains a finding that the tuberculosis from which the plaintiff is suffering was the proximate result of the negligent failure of the telephone company properly to heat the premises in which she worked for the telegraph company.

The verdict is not excessive.

E. A. Prendergast, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Samuel A. Anderson, of St. Paul, for respondent.

DIBELL, J.

Action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendants telegraph company and telephone company. A verdict was directed in favor of the telegraph company. The jury found a verdict against the telephone company and it appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. This case was here before and is reported in 136 Minn. 212, 161 N. W. 512.

1. The plaintiff commenced work in an office at Luverne, Minn., on January 24, 1914, in the joint employ of the telephone company and the telegraph company. In April, 1914, her work for the telephone company ceased and from then on she worked for the telegraph company. The premises were leased by the telephone company from one Treat. In the lease the ‘lessor agrees to keep said premises heated with hot water heat during the entire term of this lease whenever artificial heat is necessary to keep said premises at a temperature of 70 degrees above zero Fahrenheit, without extra cost to said lessee.’ The telephone company leased the premises to the telegraph company from about May 1, 1914, and until February, 1915, and agreed to furnish heat substantially in accordance with the terms of its lease with Treat. This brings the case in accord with Glidden v. Goodfellow, 124 Minn. 101, 144 N. W. 428, L. R. A. 1916E, 1073, and Glidden v. Second Ave. Inv. Co., 125 Minn. 471, 147 N. W. 658, L. R. A. 1915C, 190; and for the negligence of the telephone company in failing to furnish heat it was liable to the plaintiff although she was working for the telegraph company.

2. There is sufficient evidence of the negligent failure to provide heat. It tends to show that in the winter months of 1914 and 1915 and until the company moved in February, 1915, the office was nearly constantly cold and unfit for occupancy for the plaintiff's work. The plaintiff says that in November and December, 1914, and January, 1915, the temperature ranged from 50 to 55 degrees and rarely reached 60 degrees. In this she may be inaccurate and her statement may be an exaggeration. The evidence is ample that the room was continually cold, that complaint was made of it to the telephone company officers with whom the plaintiff came in contact, and that while some apparent effort was made to remedy conditions there was no substantial improvement. There is evidence that some of the men avoided the office and worked elsewhere. The case is not one, if the evidence is believed, of an occasional and perhaps unavoidable exposure to cold but of a continuous exposure for several months.

3. The plaintiff is now afflicted with tuberculosis and claims that the cause of it is to be found in the conditions to which she was subjected. The defendant urges that she was herself at fault and is barred of recovery either upon the general theory of contributory negligence or of a voluntary assumption of the risks of the conditions obtaining. The jury found to the contrary and we cannot say that its finding is not sustained. There is nothing in the living conditions of the plaintiff, nor in her care for her health, which requires a finding that she was at fault. She knew that it was very cold and uncomfortable in the office. It cannot be said as a matter of law that she knew or anticipated or should have known or anticipated such injurious...