Schan v. Howard Sober, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 March 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 8954,8954 |
Citation | 216 N.W.2d 793 |
Parties | Leo SCHAN, Individually and as Trustee for the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. HOWARD SOBER, INC., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. On an appeal from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the only grounds which will be considered are those which were assigned on the motion for a directed verdict.
2. When a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been denied by the trial court, the evidence must be
considered in a light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered and the trial court's order should not be overruled when there is an issue for the jury to determine.
3. The employer must furnish his employees with reasonably safe machinery, tools, and appliances.
4. The majority rule is that an employee who is confronted what an unforeseen situation whch constitutes an emergency, which rendered it necessary, in his employer's interest, that the employee have temporary assistance, is to be deemed to have had implied authority to procure necessary help and thus create between the employer and the emergency assistant the relationship of master and servant, which will engage responsibility on the part of the employer to the assistant for injuries chargeable to the neglect of the employer.
5. The statutory provision that 'An employer, in all cases, shall indemnify his employee for losses caused by the former's want of ordinary care', § 34--02--03, N.D.C.C., is applicable in the case of a gratuitous employee as well as an employee for reward, and in determining the employer's liability the same rule applies as in the case of master and servant.
6. A motion for new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence is addressed dressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and its decision thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion clearly appears.
7. Under the evidence in the case, the instruction requested by the defendant on the issue of the fellow-servant doctrine was properly denied by the trial court.
8. A motion for a new trial on the ground that damages are excessive and appear to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and the appellate court will not reverse the trial court's order on the ground unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown.
Palda, Anderson Tossett, Palda, Thomas & Berning, Minot, for defendant and appellant.
Farhart, Rasmuson, Olson & Lian, Minot, for plaintiff and appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendant-appellant, Howard Sober, Inc. (hereinafter Sober, Inc.), from an ordr of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Ward County, denying Sober, Inc.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. There is no appeal taken from the judgment itself.
The material facts are as follows:
Sober, Inc. is a corporation engaged in the business of transporting motor vehicles. In March of 1965, James Lewis was employed by Sober, Inc. as a driver of a vehicle transport. At that time he had had approximately eleven years' experience in driving such transports.
Shortly before March 9, 1965, Mr. Lewis left Des Moines, Iowa, to transport a load of cars to Nebraska, and then proceeded to Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City, South Dakota. He was to pick up a load of F--100 Ford pickup trucks from the Boeing Aircraft Corporation at Ellsworth and transport them to Boeing's motor pool at the Grand Forks Air Force Base near Grand Forks, North Dakota. When Mr. Lewis arrived in Rapid City, to load such trucks for transport, he learned that they were four-wheel drive units. This necessitated certain modifications in his normal loading procedure, which he explained as follows:
'Q All right, you had hauled F100 Ford pickup trucks on your particular unit on other occasions prior to March 9, 1965?
'A Yes.
'Q All right, did it make a difference in those particular vehicles if they were four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive?
'A Yes, very definitely.
'Q What difference did it make?
'Q Now, would you just amplify or explain to me what you mean, what effect that has then?
'Q Now, I would like to limit my questions specifically to what, if any, adjustments are required to be made when they're placed in the lower racks?
'Q Where the units that you picked up in Rapid City, South Dakota, F100 Ford pickup trucks with four-wheel drive?
'A Yes.
'Q (Mr. Thorn, continuing) When hauling an F100 Ford pickup of that particular year with four-wheel drive, it is necessary that you left some of the air out of the tires to reduce its overall height while it's being transported?
'A In the bottom, yes.
'A Yes.'
Mr. Lewis loaded five of these F--100 pickups on the transport and hauled them to Grand Forks. When he arrived at the Boeing Motor Pool at the Grand Forks Air Force Base, Mr. Lewis reported to the dispatcher of the motor pool and requested that someone with an air compressor assist him in inflating the tires of the pickups so that they could be driven off the transport without damaging the tires. The plaintiff, Leo Schan, an automotive mechanic with Boeing, was directed by his immediate supervisor to assist Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis testified as follows with respect to Mr. Schan's assistance in unloading the pickups from the transport carrier:
'Q And in what nature did he assist you as you proceeded?
'A Three top ones.
'Q Okay, and in taking those vehicles off, were they chained to the carrier?
'A Yes.
'Q And what type of mechanism was it that was used to release the chains on those vehicles?
'A What we call a winch bar; it's a long bar about thrity-inches long, round, and approximately three-quarters of an inch in diameter.
'Q Okay, this winch bar, is that the same as what's used to release the chains on each of the vehicles?
'A Yes.
'Q Is there a separate one for each of the vehicles?
'Q Okay, is there a bar for each chain, for each vehicle?
'A No, you only carry one bar.
'Q Okay, is there a ratchet?
'A Ratchet for each corner of each vehicle.
'Q Okay, so you take this bar around and place it in each ratchet for each of the chains for each vehicle?
'A Yes.
'A Twelve times.
'Q At least twelve times?
'A Yes.
'Q And in doing this, did you do this by yourself?
'A Yes.
'Q Did Mr. Schan assist you in any way when you removed the first three vehicles so far as the winch bar and the ratchets?
'A No.
'Q Concerning these first three vehicles, in which way did Mr. Schan assist you?
'Q And he was the man that had been sent out by the Boeing--
'A Yes.
'Q Office there?
'A Yes.
'Q Did he ever state to you what his occupation was?
'A (No response from the witness.)
'Q What was his position with the company?
'Q So you had transported other vehicles from missile base to missile base?
'Q Now, as you started unloading the, what you call, vehicle number four, which I--is that correct, this would be the rear vehicle on the under berth of the rig?
'A Yes, bottom.
'Q What happened when you started unloading that one?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Center Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... Nerby, supra ; Anderson v. Meide, 129 N.W.2d 275 (N.D.1964) ; Schan v. Howard Sober, Inc., 216 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 1974) ... ...
-
Cook v. Stenslie
... ... Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 130 N.W.2d 165 (N.D.1964), the trial court is not required to grant a ... Ness, 221 N.W.2d 70 (N.D.1974). To this list might be added Schan v. Howard Sober, Inc., 216 N.W.2d 793 (N.D.1974) ... In ... ...
-
Malarchick v. Pierce
... ... Hoeven, 228 N.W.2d 893 (N.D.1975); and Schan v. Howard Sober, Inc., 216 N.W.2d 793 (N.D.1974) ... A ... ...
-
Maurer v. Wagner
... ... 1 ... In Schan v. Howard Sober, Inc., 216 N.W.2d 793, 800 (N.D.1974), this court relied ... ...
-
The Law of Volunteers and Gratuitous Employees
...employee from a mere volunteer or intermeddler). 10. Buisker, supra, note 8. 11. Milbank Mutual Ins. Co., supra, note 9. 12. Schan, 216 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 13. Id. at 802. 14. Bond, supra, note 7. 15. Cottam, supra, note 4. 16. Bond, supra, note 7 at 702. 17. Victory Chapel, Inc., 1990 WL 1829......