Perras v. A. Booth & Company
| Decision Date | 14 February 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,431 - (184) |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 179,82 Minn. 191 |
| Parties | ELISE L. PERRAS v. A. BOOTH & COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed January 4, 1901
Master's Duty to Servant.
It is the duty of the master to furnish his servant a reasonably safe and suitable place in which to perform his work, and to keep and maintain it in such condition, -- not to guard and protect from the negligent acts and conduct of fellow servants, but to put the place in a reasonably safe condition, and omit no personal duty to keep and maintain it in such condition.
Death by Wrongful Act -- Removal of Freight Elevator.
In this action one Super was defendant's foreman, having general charge and control of its business, with authority to direct the employees of defendant when and where to work, and what particular duty to perform. On the day complained of, he had ordered plaintiff's intestate to perform certain work and was aware of the fact that prior to the commencement of such work the place of performance thereof was put in a safe and proper condition to do the same. After so ordering deceased to do and perform such work, Super, without notice or warning to him, removed one of the instrumentalities used in the performance thereof, and thereby rendered the place of performance dangerous and unsafe, in consequence of which the employee was killed. Held, that the questions (1) whether deceased was guilty of contributory negligence; (2) whether the act of Super was one of the ordinary risks of the employment of deceased, and assumed by him; and (3) whether Super was, in the act complained of, acting in the capacity of foreman and vice principal, or as a fellow servant, -- should have been submitted to the jury, under the evidence produced at the trial, and that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant.
An application for reargument having been made, the court, on February 14, 1901, filed the following opinion:
Petition on Rehearing
In making the statement in the former opinion to the effect that the act of Super in removing the elevator was not in furtherance of defendant's business, we did not intend to be understood as holding or saying that Super had exceeded his authority as defendant's foreman, or that he was acting beyond the scope of his powers. A reading of the whole opinion will show that we intended to hold that that question was for...
To continue reading
Request your trial