Osborne v. McMasters

• Decision Date: 30 January 1889
• Citation: 41 N.W. 543,40 Minn. 103
• Parties: OSBORNE v MCMASTERS.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

40 Minn. 103

41 N.W. 543

OSBORNEvMCMASTERS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 30, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon a person a duty designed for the protection of others, if he neglects to perform the duty he is liable to those for whose protection it was imposed for any damages resulting proximately from such neglect, and of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent. Following Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323,23 N. W. Rep. 287.

2. Whether the act constituting negligence was such on common-law principles, or is made such by statute, the doctrine of agency applies, to-wit, that the master is liable for the negligence of his servant committed in the course of his employment and resulting in injury to others.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county. KELLY, Judge.

Action for damages by M. Osborne, administrator, against S. R. McMasters, for the death of plaintiff's intestate, resulting from the use of poison sold without a label by defendant's clerk in the course of his employment. Judgment for plaintiff, and dependant appeals.

Flandrau, Squires & Cutcheon, for appellant.

M. D. Munn, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

Upon the record in this case it must be taken as the facts that defendant's clerk in his drug-store, in the course of his employment as such, sold to plaintiff's intestate a deadly poison without labeling it “Poison,” as required by statute; that she, in ignorance of its deadly qualities, partook of the poison which caused her death. Except for the ability of counsel and the earnestness with which they have argued the case, we would not have supposed that there could be any serious doubt of defendant's liability on this state of facts. It is immaterial for present purposes whether section 329 of the Penal Code or section 14, c. 147, Laws 1885, or both, are still in force, and constitute the law governing this case. The requirements of both statutes are substantially the same, and the sole object of both is to protect the public against the dangerous qualities of poison. It is now well settled, certainly in this state, that where a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for whose protection or benefit it was imposed for any injuries of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent, and which were proximately produced by such neglect. In support of this we need only cite our own decision in Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323,23 N. W. Rep. 237. Defendant contends that this is only true where a...