Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1884 |
| Citation | 17 N.W. 952,31 Minn. 351 |
| Parties | Joseph Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Polk county, Stearns, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Order reversed, and new trial granted.
R. B Galusha and P. A. Dufour, for appellant.
R Reynolds, for respondent, cited 1 Addison on Torts (Wood's Ed.) 585; Althorp v. Wolfe, 22 N.Y. 355 364; Lee v. Village of Sandy Hill, 40 N.Y. 442.
All the evidence in this case tends to prove that some section-men, under the charge of a section-foreman, were, in the employment of defendant, engaged in repairing its railroad track near defendant's farm, on the 21st of October, 1882. While engaged in such work, they usually returned to their boarding-house for dinner, but on this day, their work being at some distance, they took their dinner with them. At noon, when they quit work to eat, they built a fire, or rekindled one which some other person had kindled, on defendant's right of way, for the purpose of warming their coffee. After eating dinner, they resumed their work, negligently leaving the fire unextinguished, which spread in the grass and ran on to plaintiff's land and burned his hay. There is no evidence that the defendant was boarding these men, or that it was any part of its duty to prepare or cook their meals. Neither is there anything tending to show that the defendant either knew of or authorized the kindling of a fire for any such purpose, either on this or on any other occasion. Nor is there any evidence that it was the duty of these section-men to exercise any supervision over the right of way, or to extinguish fires that might be ignited on it. So far as the evidence goes, their employment was exclusively in repairing the railroad track.
The doctrine of the liability of the master for the wrongful acts of his servant is predicated upon the maxims, respondeat superior and qui facit per alium facit per se. In fact, it rests upon the doctrine of agency. Therefore, the universal test of the master's liability is whether there was authority, express or implied, for doing the act; that is, was it one done in the course and within the scope of the servant's employment? If it be done in the course of and within the scope of the employment, the master will be liable for the act, whether negligent, fraudulent, deceitful, or an act of positive malfeasance. Smith on Master & Servant, 151. But a master is not liable for every wrong which the servant may commit during the continuance of the employment. The liability can only occur when that which is done is within the real or apparent scope of the master's business. It does not arise when the servant steps outside of his employment to do an act for himself, not connected with his master's business. Beyond the scope of his employment the servant is as much a stranger to his master as any third person. The master is only responsible so long as the servant can be said to be doing the act, in the doing of which he is guilty of negligence, in the course of his employment. A master is not responsible for any act or omission of his servant which is not connected with the business in which he serves him, and does not happen in the course of his employment. And in determining whether a particular act is done in...
To continue reading
Request your trial