Peterson v. Minnesota Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 32349. |
| Citation | 291 N.W. 705,207 Minn. 387 |
| Parties | PETERSON et al. v. MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Crow Wing County; D. H. Fullerton Judge.
Actions by Elaine Peterson and her husband against the Minnesota Power & Light Company for injuries sustained by plaintiff wife as a result of defendant's alleged negligence in installing a defective electric stove and in permitting an excessive amount of electricity to enter the stove. Verdicts for plaintiffs, and from orders denying defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding or for new trials defendant appeals.
Orders affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
Plaintiffs husband and wife, sued for damages suffered by both parties from injuries inflicted upon the wife by the alleged negligence of defendant. Held,
Under the facts, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly applied by the trial court.
There was no error in the charge of the trial court to the jury.
Record examined and found not to support contention of defendant that there was misconduct of counsel and passion and prejudice on the part of the jury in assessing damages.
A. Gordon Rosenmeier, of Little Falls, and Gillette, Nye, Harries & Montague, of Duluth, for appellant.
Ryan, Ryan & Ryan, of Brainerd, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, instituted actions for damages suffered by both parties from injuries inflicted upon the wife by the alleged negligence of defendant. After verdicts for plaintiffs, defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding or for new trials. The motions were denied. Defendant appeals.
About October 3, 1938, defendant installed an electric kitchen stove in plaintiffs' home. The installation was done pursuant to an agreement which appears to be in the form of an ordinary conditional sales contract except that it is provided, ‘ Should this range not be satisfactory party may return same up to December 1, 1938.’
On October 18, 1938, Mrs. Peterson, the wife, went to the stove to remove some rolls that were baking. She knelt on one knee and ‘ used one hand to open the door of the oven and the other I put on the oven switch’ which she turned to ‘ off’ . At this instant, a charge of electricity flared before her face. It rendered her temporarily blind. Medical treatment was immediately obtained. The next morning she could distinguish objects, but it was two weeks before she could see clearly. Considerable conflicting medical testimony was introduced bearing on the nature and extent of the injury to Mrs. Peterson's eyes.
The day after the accident, according to plaintiffs, two of defendant's employes came to the Peterson home and worked on the stove. Plaintiffs' only testimony relative to what was done is that one of defendant's salesmen told them that the workmen, who were not witnesses, replaced the oven control.
In the complaints, plaintiffs alleged: ‘ that said flash or electric energy was so caused to be emitted by said stove because of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in permitting parts of said stove to be defective and in permitting large, dangerous and unusual voltages of electricity to enter into said stove.’
At the trial reliance was placed upon res ipsa loquitur. Occurrence of the event was established. Testimony was introduced from which the jury could find that neither plaintiffs nor any one else except defendant's workmen touched the mechanism of the stove or used it in a manner other than it was intended. Defendant did not introduce any evidence on this aspect of the case.
The trial court adopted the res ipsa loquitur theory and instructed the jury that if they found that the stove and electric current were under the control of defendant, and that plaintiffs ‘ or any other person other than defendant or its agents had done nothing to the mechanical or electrical parts of the stove which would affect the regular or normal operation’, then the event itself, if found to be one which does not happen in the usual course of things, could be taken as evidence of negligence.
Several of defendant's assignments of error can be boiled down to the claim that plaintiffs have not proved the causes of action alleged in the complaints. Basis of this is that no evidence was introduced supporting the allegations and that the allegations sound in tort while proof took on the character of a suit for damages for breach of contract. Quick disposal can be made of these contentions. If there was any variance between the allegations and the contract proved (i. e. between a bailment with an option and a conditional sales contract) we fail to see how it is material or prejudicial. Mrs. Peterson was not a party to the agreement and can base her claim on negligence. Mr. Peterson's cause of action has its foundation in the breach of duty to his wife. The litigants are not limited to actions for breach of warranty as defendant urges. As we understand the record, plaintiffs throughout the trial relied upon the theory that they were pursuing a tort remedy. If res ipsa loquitur was properly applied by the trial court, the allegations of negligence are sufficiently supported and the burden has been sustained. To this we must direct attention.
Plaintiffs rely upon the proposition that from the event two inferences are permissible: (1) That the flash was caused by defendant negligently permitting an excessive amount of electricity to enter the stove; (2) That the stove was defective due to the negligence of defendant.
Clearly the jury could find that ordinarily electric stoves do not emit ‘ flashes' of the character experienced by Mrs. Peterson. Likewise it could infer from the event standing alone that the flash was caused by an excessive amount of current entering the stove from defendant's wires. Defendant had exclusive control of the current and the wires and the jury could reasonably conclude that it must have been defendant who negligently permitted the current to enter in an excessive amount. On this aspect...
To continue reading
Request your trial