Stansberry v. Monitor Stove Co.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22414.,22414.
• Citation: 183 N.W. 977,150 Minn. 1
• Parties: STANSBERRY et al. v. MONITOR STOVE CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

150 Minn. 1

183 N.W. 977

STANSBERRY et al.

v.MONITOR STOVE CO.

No. 22414.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 15, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Chas. S. Jelley, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Pauline Stansberry and others, opposed by the Monitor Stove Company, to recover compensation for the death of Frank J. Stansberry, employé. Compensation was allowed, and the employer appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

An Ohio corporation whose northwestern business is localized at a Minneapolis branch is, as to employés of that branch, within the Minnesota Compensation Act.

A traveling salesman, employed in connection with the business localized in this state, is within the Minnesota act, though injured by accident outside of the state.

Where a traveling salesman, obliged to stop at hotels in the course of his travel and to furnish his employer with a list of the cities on his itinerary, the names of the hotels at which he is to stop and the time he is to be at each hotel, is killed while attempting to escape during a fire in one of such hotels in which he is stopping, compensation may be recovered. A. A. Tenner, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Ware & Melrin, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

Frank J. Stansberry was a traveling salesman for defendant company. While in the Frederic Hotel at Grand Forks, N. D., a fire broke out at night and Stansberry was killed while attempting to escape. His widow and minor children made claim for compensation under the Minnesota workmen's compensation statute (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 8195-8230). The claim was allowed. Defendant appeals.

[1] 1. Defendant is an Ohio corporation. It manufactures and sells furnaces. It maintains a permanent branch office, warehouse, and agency in Minneapolis, Minn. The sale and distribution of furnaces in the Northwest, including Minnesota and North Dakota, are made through the Minneapolis agency. Stansberry was employed by the Minneapolis branch and worked under its direction. For purposes of this case the situation is the same as though the head office instead of a branch were located in Minnesota. The business in which Stansberry was employed had a situs in this state.

2. The territory in which Stansberry traveled was for the most part in North Dakota. The business in which he was engaged was localized in this state, and in such a case, our Compensation Act applies and compensates for injuries in a service incident to its conduct, sustained beyond the borders of the state. State ex rel. Chambers v. District Court, 139 Minn. 205, 166 N. W. 185, 3 A. L. R. 1347 (distinguishing Johnson v. Nelson, 128 Minn. 158, 150 N. W. 620);State ex rel. Maryland Cas. Co. v. District Court, 140 Minn. 427, 168 N. W. 177;State ex rel. McCarthy Bros. v. District Court, 141 Minn. 61, 169 N. W. 274.

[3] 3. A more difficult question is whether the death of Stansberry was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as provided in G. S. 1913, § 8195. The death of Stansberry was accidental as that term is used in the act. The fact that death resulted from an attempt to escape from the fire puts the case in no different position from what it would have been had he perished in the fire.

The court found that Stansberry lost his life ‘while in the act of furthering the interests and business of the defendant and while engaged in saving certain property of the defendant, and then and there in his possession, and in attempting to save his life.’ The property referred to was a portfolio containing advertising matter, a sales order book, report sheet, and advertising samples. We should not predicate liability on the fact of the efforts of Stansberry to save these small items of property.

The important facts are that he was a traveling salesman engaged in the service of his employer. As such he was obliged to stop at hotels in the course of his travel and to furnish the Minneapolis office with a list of the cities on his itinerary and the names of the hotels at which he was to stop and how long he was to be at each hotel, and it was his duty to carry out such schedule. He had given Grand Forks as one of such cities and the Frederic Hotel as his stopping place there. The question is whether such an injury received while stopping there arose out of and in the course of his employment. We think it did.

In State ex rel. Chambers v. District Court, supra, it was held that a traveling...