VoYer v. Dispatch Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 1138,62 Minn. 393
• Parties: VOYER v. DISPATCH PRINTING CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

62 Minn. 393

64 N.W. 1138

VOYER

v.DISPATCH PRINTING CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 14, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In an action by a servant against his master for damages for personal injury, held, on the evidence, it was a question for the jury whether or not the master was negligent, and whether or not the servant at the time of his injury was acting within the scope of his employment.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Kerr, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by John B. Voyer against the Dispatch Printing Company. A verdict for defendant was directed, and from an order denying a new trial plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Enoch Johnson (James E. Trask, of counsel), for appellant.

Munn, Boyesen & Thygeson, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

Defendant is the publisher of a daily newspaper in St. Paul. Plaintiff was in its employ for five or six days, mostly in assisting in setting up a new printing press in its press room, in the basement of its printing establishment. There were at the time two other presses already in use in this press room. At one of these presses there was used an electric lamp, to which was attached two electric wires, insulated, and, as we understand the evidence, bound together. These wires extended from the hand lamp where it ordinarily hung, over the press, down into a shallow pit under the press, and were there wound into a coil, which hung on a peg on the side of the pit, and again extended from this coil to the wall of the room, and were there connected with other electric wires. One Cameron was the pressman who operated this press. One Egan was the foreman of the press room, under whose superintendence plaintiff was employed. At the time in question plaintiff was at work on the new press, when he was called over by Cameron to the press of which Cameron was pressman, and told to hand the electric hand lamp to Cameron, under one part of this press where Cameron was at work. He went into the pit under the press, and took the lamp, which then lay under one side of the press, and reached it to Cameron, but the wire attached to the lamp was too short to permit the lamp to be taken to the desired place. Then plaintiff seized the wire in his hand for the purpose of uncoiling it off of the peg, and, while proceeding to do so, received a shock of electricity from the wire, which prostrated him, burned his hands, face, and arm severely, and also burned his clothes. This action is brought to recover damages for this injury. It is claimed by plaintiff that he was injured in the course of his employment, by reason of defendant's negligence in permitting this wire to be uninsulated in parts and defectively insulated in other parts, and in permitting a quantity of water to remain in the pit, which gave the person standing in the water and coming in contact with the wire a more complete connection with the ground, causing him to receive a more severe shock from the wire. At the close of the trial the court ordered a verdict for defendant, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals.

We are of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict for plaintiff, and that the court below erred in taking the case from the jury. It sufficiently appears from the evidence that this pit is a place where defendant's employés were accustomed to go and handle this lamp and wire as plaintiff had handled them, and we are of the opinion that the evidence tends to prove that defendant was negligent in permitting the insulation of the wire to be defective and out of repair. This proposition is not strenuously controverted by defendant's counsel, but it is contended that plaintiff at the time of his injury was acting without the scope of his employment, and was a mere volunteer in going into the pit and handling the lamp and...