Hartigan v. Dickson
| Decision Date | 29 October 1900 |
| Docket Number | 12,267 - (74) |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 1091,81 Minn. 284 |
| Parties | PATRICK W. HARTIGAN v. GEORGE DICKSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $2,500 for personal injuries. From an order, Otis, J., sustaining a demurrer to a portion of the answer, defendant appealed. Reversed.
Personal Injury -- Apportionment of Liability.
Where two or more persons are liable for an injury sustained by a third party, the damages recoverable are not apportionable in law between the parties so liable, and a settlement with the injured party by one inures to the benefit of all who are legally responsible for such injury.
Personal Injury -- Accord and Satisfaction -- Release of Third Persons.
When the injured party in such case, in good faith, makes a claim against another for his injuries, accepts compensation, and gives satisfaction therefor, all persons against whom suit might be brought for such injury are likewise released whether the party with whom compromise was made could have been legally held in a suit for such damages or not.
Squires & Begg, for appellant.
John W Willis, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company.
The complaint, in substance, charges that while plaintiff was at work in the line of his duty, prying apart portions of a locomotive engine, he inserted a wedge between such parts to keep them asunder, when defendant negligently removed the wedge, causing an iron framework against which the lever in use by plaintiff rested to spring suddenly back, whereby his hand was caught and injured. The answer alleges that plaintiff and defendant were in the service of the common employer; that defendant was foreman of the shops, and plaintiff was his helper; that in doing the acts set forth in the complaint each was engaged in the performance of duties imposed by the common employment; that after the injury the plaintiff made a demand against the railway company for damages on account of the injury so received, upon the claim that the company was liable therefor by reason of the negligence of its agents and servants, whereupon the claim so made was settled and compromised, plaintiff receiving from the company a certain sum of money in full satisfaction for his injury. He then executed a written release therefor, embracing "all causes of action, costs, charges, claims, or demands of every name and nature arising and growing out of said injuries set forth in the complaint." To this answer plaintiff interposed a demurrer, upon the ground that the facts stated therein did not constitute a defense.
The demurrer was sustained, upon the theory that the release of the railway company was not a release of defendant's foreman, and that, if there was any liability on the part of the company, it was legally distinct from the liability of defendant in this action. From the order sustaining the demurrer, defendant appeals to this court.
It is undoubtedly the rule that where an injured party has accepted satisfaction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial