Ruehl v. Lidgerwood Rural Telephone Company
| Decision Date | 15 March 1912 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Richland county; Allen, J.
Action under the statute to recover damages caused bye death by wrongful act. Verdict directed in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Judgment of the District Court reversed, a new trial granted and cause remanded.
W. S Lander, for appellant.
Zimmerman was simply the servant of defendant, and nothing more; there was no question even to go to the jury as to his being an independent contractor. Wood, Mast. & S. § 1, p. 2; 26 Cyc. pp. 699, 1546; Waggener v. Haskell, 89 Tex 435, 35 S.W. 1; Jensen v. Barbour, 15 Mont. 582, 39 P. 906; Holmes v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. 49 La.Ann. 1465, 22 So. 403; Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co. 52 Minn. 474, 38 Am. St. Rep. 564, 55 N.W. 52; O'Neill v. Blase, 94 Mo.App. 648, 68 S.W. 764; Fink v. Missouri Furnace Co. 10 Mo.App. 61; Sadler v. Henlock, 3 C. L. R. 760, 4 El. & Bl. 570, 24 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 138, 1 Jur. N. S. 677, 3 Week. Rep. 181; Turner v. Great Eastern R. Co. 33 L. T. N. S. 431; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Juneman, 18 C. C. A. 394, 30 U. S. App. 541, 71 F. 936; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U.S. 518, 33 L.Ed. 440, 10 S.Ct. 175; Stone v. Codman, 15 Pick. 297; State, Redstrake, Prosecutor, v. Swayze, 52 N.J.L. 129, 18 A. 697; Lancaster Ave. Improv. Co. v. Rhoads, 116 Pa. 377, 2 Am. St. Rep. 608, 9 A. 852; Lewis v. Detroit Vitrified Brick Co. 164 Mich. 489, 129 N.W. 726; Larson v. Home Teleph. Co. 164 Mich. 295, 129 N.W. 894; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355, 68 N.W. 45, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 188; Tiffin v. McCormack, 34 Ohio St. 638, 32 Am. Rep. 408, 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 194; Brackett v. Lubke, 4 Allen, 138, 81 Am. Dec. 694; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Coneys, 28 C. C. A. 388, 51 U. S. App. 570, 82 Fed 177; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 Ala. 512, 3 So. 522, 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 164; Giacomini v. Pacific Lumber Co. 5 Cal.App. 218, 89 P. 1059; Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123, 50 Am. Rep. 287; DePalma v. Weinman, 15 N. M. 68, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 423, 103 P. 782; Goldman v. Mason, 18 N.Y. S. R. 376, 2 N.Y.S. 337; Pickens v. Diecker, 21 Ohio St. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 55; Smith v. Humphreyville, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 104 S.W. 495; Shearm. & Redf. Neg. §§ 76-79; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wallace, Tex. Civ. App. , 54 S.W. 738; Indiana Iron Co. v. Cray, 19 Ind.App. 565, 48 N.E. 803; Brophy v. Bartlett, 1 Silv. Ct. App. 575; Barclay v. Puget Sound Lumber Co. 48 Wash. 241, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 140, 93 P. 430; Nyback v. Champagne Lumber Co. 48 C. C. A. 632, 109 F. 732; St. Clair Nail Co. v. Smith, 43 Ill.App. 105; Drennen v. Smith, 115 Ala. 396, 22 So. 442; Scott v. Springfield, 81 Mo.App. 312; Speed v. Atlantic & P. R. Co. 71 Mo. 303; Stevens v. Gourley, 14 Moore P. C. C. 92; Steger v. Barrett, Tex. Civ. App. , 124 S.W. 174; Mullich v. Brocker, 119 Mo.App. 332, 97 S.W. 549; Andrews Bros. Co. v. Burns, 22 Ohio C. C. 437, 12 Ohio C. D. 305; Anderson v. Moore, 108 Ill.App. 106; Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co. 66 Minn. 76, 68 N.W. 799; Ballard & B. Co. v. Lee, 131 Ky. 412, 115 S.W. 732; Isnard v. Edgar Zinc Co. 81 Kan. 765, 106 P. 1003; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Romans, Tex. Civ. App. , 114 S.W. 157; Pearson v. M. M. Potter Co. 10 Cal.App. 245, 101 P. 681; Neimeyer v. Weyerhaueser, 95 Iowa 497, 64 N.W. 416.
Where, in the making of an improvement of any kind, it is manifest that injury is likely to result unless due precautions are taken, duty rests upon the employer to see to it that all necessary precautions are taken. A neglect of this duty will render the employer liable. 26 Cyc. 1560 and note 95, and cases cited; Thompson v. Lowell, L. & H. Street R. Co. 170 Mass. 577, 40 L.R.A. 345, 64 Am. St. Rep. 323, 49 N.E. 913; Davis v. Summerfield, 133 N.C. 325, 63 L.R.A. 492, 45 S.E. 654; Wolf v. Third Ave. R. Co. 67 A.D. 605, 74 N.Y.S. 336; Denison, B. & N. O. R. Co. v. Barry, Tex. Civ. App. , 80 S.W. 634, 98 Tex. 248, 83 S.W. 5; Wetherbee v. Partridge, 175 Mass. 185, 78 Am. St. Rep. 486, 55 N.E. 894; Thomas v. Harrington, 72 N.H. 75, 65 L.R.A. 742, 54 A. 285; Mullins v. Siegel-Cooper Co. 183 N.Y. 129, 75 N.E. 1112; Downey v. Low, 22 A.D. 460, 48 N.Y.S. 207; Wile v. Los Angeles Ice & Cold Storage Co. 2 Cal.App. 190, 83 P. 271; Keyes v. Second Baptist Church, 99 Me. 308, 59 A. 446; Wiggin v. St. Louis, 135 Mo. 558, 37 S.W. 528; Murphy v. Perlstein, 73 A.D. 256, 76 N.Y.S. 657; Ann v. Herter, 79 A.D. 6, 79 N.Y.S. 825; Loth v. Columbia Theater Co. 197 Mo. 328, 94 S.W. 847; Southern Ohio R. Co. v. Morey, 47 Ohio St. 207, 7 L.R.A. 701, 24 N.E. 269; Palmer v. Lincoln, 5 Neb. 136, 25 Am. Rep. 470; Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 679, 18 L.Ed. 432; Omaha v. Jensen, 35 Neb. 68, 37 Am. St. Rep. 432, 52 N.W. 833; McCarrier v. Hollister, 15 S.D. 366, 91 Am. St. Rep. 695, 89 N.W. 862; Denovan v. Oakland & B. Rapid Transfer Co. 102 Cal. 245, 36 P. 516; Savannah v. Waldner, 49 Ga. 316; Joliet v. Harwood, 86 Ill. 110, 29 Am. Rep. 17; Dooley v. Sullivan, 112 Ind. 451, 2 Am. St. Rep. 209, 14 N.E. 566; Bonaparte v. Wiseman, 86 Md. 12, 44 L.R.A. 482, 42 A. 918; Stewart v. Putnam, 127 Mass. 403; Pye v. Faxon, 156 Mass. 471, 31 N.E. 640; Gorham v. Gross, 125 Mass. 232, 28 Am. Rep. 224; Woodman v. Metropolitan R. Co. 149 Mass. 340, 4 L.R.A. 213, 14 Am. St. Rep. 427, 21 N.E. 482, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 80; Dillon v. Hunt, 105 Mo. 154, 24 Am. St. Rep. 374, 16 S.W. 516; Johnston v. Phoenix Bridge Co. 44 A.D. 581, 60 N.Y.S. 947; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Steinbrock, 61 Ohio St. 215, 55 N.E. 618, 76 Am. St. Rep. 375, and elaborate note; Houston v. Isaacks, 68 Tex. 116, 3 S.W. 693; Wilber v. Follansbee, 97 Wis. 577, 72 N.W. 741, 73 N.W. 559; Chicago Economic Fuel Gas Co. v. Myers, 168 Ill. 139, 48 N.W. 66; Bower v. Peate, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 321, 45 L. J. Q. B. 446, 35 L. T. N. S. 321; Adams Exp. Co. v. Schofield, 111 Ky. 832, 64 S.W. 93; Reuben v. Swigart, 15 Ohio C. C. 565, 7 Ohio C. D. 638; Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. v. Anderson, 98 Tex. 156, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 198, 81 S.W. 282.
The question as to whether, under the evidence, as matter of law, the parents of the deceased child were guilty of such contributory negligence as precluded a recovery was a question for the jury, and nothing more. Kunkel v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 18 N.D. 367, and cases cited at page 377, 121 N.W. 830; Umsted v. Colgate Farmers' Elevator Co. 18 N.D. 309, 122 N.W. 390; Herbert v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 38, 13 N.W. 349; Mares v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 336, 21 N.W. 5; Elliot v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 5 Dak. 523, 3 L.R.A. 363, 41 N.W. 758.
Purcell & Divet, George W. Freerks, and P. L. Keating, for respondent.
Zimmerman was an independent contractor, and the relation of master and servant did not exist between him and the defendant. Solberg v. Schlosser, 20 N.D. 307, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1111, 127 N.W. 91; Gay v. Roanoke R. & Lumber Co. 148 N.C. 336, 62 S.E. 436; Patton-Worsham Drug Co. v. Drennon, Tex. Civ. App. , 123 S.W. 705; McCarthy v. Portland, 71 Me. 318, 36 Am. Rep. 320; Keyes v. Second Baptist Church, 99 Me. 308, 59 A. 446; Kampman v. Rothwell, Tex. Civ. App. , 107 S.W. 120; 2 Thomp. Neg. § 22, p. 809; Atlantic Transport Co. v. Coneys, 51 U. S. App. 570, 82 F. 177, and instructive note at the end of this case in 28 C. C. A. pp. 392-399; Giacomini v. Pacific Lumber Co. 5 Cal.App. 218, 89 P. 1059; Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123, 50 Am. Rep. 287; Goldman v. Mason, 18 N.Y. S. R. 376, 2 N.Y.S. 337; Pickens v. Diecker, 21 Ohio St. 212, 8 Am. Rep. 55; Kniceley v. West Virginia Midland R. Co. 64 W.Va. 278, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 370, 61 S.E. 811; Penny v. Wimbledon Urban Dist. Council [1898] 2 Q. B. 212, 67 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 754, 62 J. P. 582, 78 L. T. N. S. 748, 14 Times L. R. 477; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Madden, 77 Kan. 80, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 788, 93 P. 586; Arasmith v. Temple, 11 Ill.App. 39; Eldred v. Mackie, 178 Mass. 1, 59 N.E. 673; Houghton v. Loma Prieta Lumber Co. 152 Cal. 574, 93 P. 377; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hughes, 134 Ga. 75, 67 S.E. 542; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U.S. 518, 33 L.Ed. 440, 10 S.Ct. 175; Casement v. Brown, 148 U.S. 615, 37 L.Ed. 582, 13 S.Ct. 672; Carlson v. Stocking, 91 Wis. 432, 65 N.W. 58; McColligan v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 214 Pa. 229, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 544, 112 Am. St. Rep. 739, 63 A. 792; MacDonald v. O'Reilly, 45 Ore. 589, 78 P. 753; Midgette v. Branning Mfg. Co. 150 N.C. 333, 64 S.E. 5; Finkelstein v. Balkin, 103 N.Y.S. 99; Omaha Bridge, & Terminal R. Co. v. Hargadine, 5 Neb. (Unof.) 418, 98 N.W. 1071, 76 Neb. 729, 107 N.W. 864; Hawver v. Whalen, 49 Ohio St. 69, 14 L.R.A. 828, 29 N.E. 1049; Poor v. Madison River Power Co. 38 Mont. 341, 99 P. 947; McGrath v. St. Louis & H. Constr. Co. 215 Mo. 191, 114 S.W. 611; Brackett v. Lubke, 4 Allen, 138, 81 Am. Dec. 694; Smith v. Benick, 87 Md. 610, 42 L.R.A. 277, 41 A. 277.
Contributory negligence of the plaintiff, administrator, or other beneficiaries is a good defense. Scherer v. Schlaberg, 18 N.D. 421, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 520, 122 N.W. 1000.
This is an action brought under the statute by Louis Ruehl, the father of, and administrator of the estate of Louis Ruehl, Jr., deceased, for and on behalf of the father and mother and sisters of the deceased, to recover damages for the death of the said Louis Ruehl, Jr., alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant by carelessly and negligently leaving a telephone post hole "without placing any guards over or above the same, and without taking any precaution of any kind to avoid" the accident. The evidence is to the effect that on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, one L. J. Christenson was president and manager of the defendant telephone company; that about such time the company arranged to extend its line past the house of the plaintiff and...
To continue reading
Request your trial