Jones v. Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Company

• Decision Date: 14 June 1912
• Docket Number: 17,616 - (135)
• Parties: JOSEPH H. JONES v. TRI-STATE TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

136 N.W. 741

118 Minn. 217

JOSEPH H. JONES v. TRI-STATE TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY and Another

Nos. 17,616 - (135)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 14, 1912

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $50,221 for personal injuries. The separate answers of defendant Curtis and the Tri-State Telephone & Telegraph Company admitted plaintiff's injury while in the employ of defendant telephone company and that there was an X-ray picture taken of plaintiff, but alleged that it was taken by a competent physician and with plaintiff's consent. The reply to the separate answer of the telephone company was a general denial. The case was tried before Dickinson, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $4,897. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Liability for injury in taking an X-ray picture.

Plaintiff was injured while in the employ of defendant, and defendant for its own purposes, employed a doctor to take an X-ray picture of plaintiff's injury. Plaintiff protested against this, but finally consented. An attempt to take the picture resulted in injury to plaintiff. In this action to recover for such injury, it is held:

1. That in exposing plaintiff to the X-ray the physician was the agent or servant of defendant, and the rule of respondeat superior applies.

2. The instrumentality being entirely under control of defendant, there being evidence that with proper instrumentalities and proper care the exposure to the X-ray does not result in injury to the subject, and evidence that such injury did so result in this case, the rule of res ipsa loquitur applies, and defendant failed to show conclusively that it was not negligent.

Harlan P. Roberts and Walter S. Chase, for appellant.

M. C. Brady and Arthur M. Higgins, for respondent.

OPINION

BUNN, J.

This is an appeal by defendant Telephone Company from a judgment against it after a verdict in favor of plaintiff and a denial by the trial court of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There was no motion for a new trial, and therefore we need only consider whether there was evidence tending to support a verdict for plaintiff.

The somewhat unusual facts may be briefly stated as follows Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant Telephone Company as a lineman. October 19, 1910, while in the performance of his duties, he received an injury. A physician was called who diagnosed the case as a displacement of the sacro-iliac joint, and used heroic treatment that is claimed to have resulted in forcing the joint into place. Plaintiff was making good progress toward recovery, when the general manager of defendant requested him to submit to an X-ray picture being taken. Plaintiff opposed this, expressing his fear of injurious consequences, assuring defendant's manager he was all right, and offering to release defendant from all claims for damages on...