Rahn v. Singer Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1885
• Citation: 26 F. 912
• Parties: RAHN v. SINGER MANUF'G CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

26 F. 912

RAHN v. SINGER MANUF'G CO. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.

October Term, 1885

John W Willis and C. A. Ebert, for plaintiff.

Mahoney & Donahue and J. N. Cross, for defendant.

NELSON J., (charging jury.)

The plaintiff, a citizen of this state, residing in Minneapolis brings this suit against the Singer Manufacturing Company, a corporation incorporated and organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey, to recover damages for personal injury inflicted, as she alleges, through the negligence of the defendant. She asks to be compensated for injury which she has suffered at the hands of this defendant, through its negligence, as she alleges. Of course, you will see that the gist of the whole action is the negligence of the defendant and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the defendant committed the injury, through its negligence, upon the plaintiff.

The claim of the plaintiff is that she was crossing, on the tenth day of April, 1884, about twilight, between sundown and dark, Franklin avenue, in the city of Minneapolis, and while crossing was run down by a horse and wagon driven by one Corbitt. The wagon had upon it a Singer sewing-machine, screwed down to the box of the wagon. Now, before the plaintiff can recover against the defendant, she must show that Corbitt was a servant of this defendant, that is, that the relation of master and servant existed; that Corbitt was a person whose conduct was under the control of the defendant in the particular business in which he was engaged. The general rule is that the master is answerable for the wrongful act of a servant committed in the course of the master's service, and this will apply to a corporation as well as to an individual. Corporations who are represented by and who operate through agents are not responsible for all wrongful acts committed by their agents or servants; but the wrongful act must be done when the agent or servant was employed in the actual service of the corporation or engaged exclusively for its benefit; so that, in this case, the principal question for the jury to consider is, was Corbitt, at the time that this plaintiff was run down on that street, in the service of the defendant? The usual test to determine whether the relation of master and servant existed, is whether the person who is charged to be the master had the right to direct the person's conduct and prescribe the mode of his action in doing the particular business; that is, to direct how the work should be done. If the person who is employed to do a particular work reserves to himself when and how the work is to be done, he may be an independent contractor; so that you are to determine-- and that is the first question that presents itself here-- whether the relation of master and servant existed between the defendant and Corbitt at the time this plaintiff was run down on that street; bearing in mind that the right to direct the person's conduct, and to prescribe how the work or business should be done, is the usual test to determine whether the relation of master and servant exists.

In this case there is a contract, which is before you,-- a contract of employment, signed by the defendant and Corbitt, defining what his duties were, and how he was to work. It is called a 'canvasser's salary and commission contract,' and by its terms Corbitt was to receive five dollars for every machine that he sold, and, in addition to the five dollars, he was to receive a commission upon the price of the machine which he sold, as a 'selling commission.' He was to receive, in addition to the said five dollars, a further sum of 10 per cent. on the gross price realized for said sales so made. He received, not only the fixed sum of five dollars, but he was to receive a commission of 10 per cent. upon the gross sales. In the pursuit of his business, the defendant agreed to furnish him a wagon. This wagon belonged to the company or the corporation, and Corbitt was to furnish a horse and harness, to be used exclusively in the business of the defendant. A further significant provision in the contract is, Corbitt, or the second party, agrees to employ himself under the direction of the said Singer Manufacturing Company; thus coming within the very test which is given to determine whether the relation of master and servant exists in law, viz., the right to direct the person's conduct, and to prescribe the mode of doing the work. Then this was to be done under the directions of the Singer Sewing-machine Company, and 'under such rules and instructions as it, or their managers at Minneapolis, shall prescribe;' so that, upon the testimony as introduced here, it is sufficient for me to say that this paper alone, in my opinion, establishes the relation of servant and master between Corbitt and the defendant in this action.

There is no doubt but that this woman was hurt when she was run down. Was this injury inflicted through the negligence of Corbitt, upon Franklin avenue, as the woman was crossing it diagonally, not at the intersection of the crossing and the street, where the usual crossing is, but near the south side of Franklin avenue, which runs east and west? The plaintiff as well as the defendant through its servants, had an equal right on Franklin avenue, but both were required to exercise the care and diligence...