Menton v. Patterson Mercantile Co.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1920
• Docket Number: Nos. 21,615, 21,616.,s. 21,615, 21,616.
• Citation: 145 Minn. 310
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: IDA MENTON v. L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE COMPANY AND ANOTHER. FRANK MENTON v. L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE COMPANY AND ANOTHER.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

145 Minn. 310

IDA MENTON v. L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE COMPANY AND ANOTHER.

FRANK MENTON v. L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE COMPANY AND ANOTHER.¹

Nos. 21,615, 21,616.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 9, 1920.

Two actions in the district court for Blue Earth county to recover $10,000 and $3,300 respectively. The answers alleged contributory negligence

on the part of plaintiffs. The cases were tried together before Comstock, J., who at the close of the testimony granted the motion of defendant mercantile company for a directed verdict in such case in its favor. From orders denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or for new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.

J. E. Regan and Moonan & Moonan, for appellants.

Barrows, Stewart & Metcalf, S. B. Wilson and V. E. Bradford, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant L. Patterson Mercantile Company is a corporation doing the business indicated by its name in the city of Mankato. The company owned and used an auto truck for the delivery of goods sold to patrons and other like purposes connected with its business affairs. Defendant Lavin was in its employ and made use of the truck for the purposes stated. On June 23, 1917, which appears to have been a holiday, Lavin took the truck, with the acquiescence and consent of the company, for the purpose of conveying himself and friends, together with refreshments, to a lake resort near Mankato, there to spend the day as one of recreation and pleasure. Intoxicating liquor was included in the list of refreshments. Lavin so negligently and carelessly ran and operated the truck that it collided with an automobile driven by plaintiff Frank Menton, in which his wife was riding, thereby causing them serious injury. They brought separate actions for damages thus occasioned, against both Lavin and the mercantile company. The actions were tried together, and at the conclusion thereof verdicts were directed in favor of the company, on the ground that the evidence failed to make a case of liability against it. The jury returned a verdict in each action against defendant Lavin. Plaintiff excepted to the directed verdicts in favor of the company, and subsequently moved for a new trial as to that defendant, which was denied. Plaintiff appealed.

The facts bring the case within the recent decision in Mogle v. A. W. Scott Co. 144 Minn. 173, 174 N. W. 832, where we declined to extend the doctrine applicable to the "family automobile," as first announced in Ploetz v....