Wallin v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1915
• Docket Number: 1905
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

151 N.W. 291

29 N.D. 469

PETER WALLIN v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 1905

Supreme Court of North Dakota

February 9, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Allen, J.

Reversed and ordered dismissed.

Action dismissed.

Purcell & Divet and Murphy & Toner, for appellant.

No common-law liability exists in this case, and if defendant is liable at all, it is because of some law extending its liability in relation to fellow servants, beyond the common law. Beleal v. Northern P. R. Co. 15 N.D. 318, 108 N.W. 33, 11 Ann. Cas. 921, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 453; Hoxie v New York N.H. & H. R. Co. 82 Conn. 352, 73 A. 754, 17 Ann. Cas. 324, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 42; Sullivan v Mississippi & M. R. Co. 11 Iowa 421.

The plaintiff complains on but one ground of negligence, and he is confined to that negligence alleged. Jenning v. Great Northern R. Co. 96 Minn. 302, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 696, 104 N.W. 1079; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Westby, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 97, 102 C. C. A. 65, 178 F. 619.

The accident involved in this case happened in Minnesota, and the laws of that state govern. Herrick v. Minneapolis & St L. R. Co. 31 Minn. 11, 47 Am. Rep. 771, 16 N.W. 413; Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Rouse, 178 Ill. 132, 44 L.R.A. 410, 52 N.E. 951, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 549; Voshefskey v. Hillside Coal & I. Co. 21 A.D. 168, 47 N.Y.S. 386; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Graham, 98 Ky. 688, 34 S.W. 229; Western & A. R. Co. v. Strong, 52 Ga. 461; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Lewis, 89 Tenn 235, 14 S.W. 603; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 36 L.Ed. 829, 12 S.Ct. 905.

Their law on the subject of fellow servants has been construed by their courts the same as our law of 1903. Blomquist v. Great Northern R. Co. 65 Minn. 69, 67 N.W. 804; Leier v. Minnesota Belt-Line R. & Transfer Co. 63 Minn. 203, 65 N.W. 269; Lavallee v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 40 Minn. 249, 41 N.W. 974; Weisel v. Eastern R. Co. 79 Minn. 245, 82 N.W. 576, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 635; Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co. 85 Minn. 447, 69 L.R.A. 887, 89 N.W. 68.

Where the work of the employee has nothing to do with the movement and operation of cars or trains, and the particular injury complained of was not caused by the movement or operation of cars or trains, then the work is not railroad hazard. Jenning v. Great Northern R. Co. 96 Minn. 302, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 696, 104 N.W. 1079; Beleal v. Northern P. R. Co. 15 N.D. 318, 108 N.W. 33, 11 Ann. Cas. 921, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 453; Smith v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. 59 Iowa 73, 12 N.W. 763; Luce v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 67 Iowa 75, 24 N.W. 600; Pearson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 47 Minn. 9, 49 N.W. 302; Foley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 64 Iowa 644, 21 N.W. 124, 14 Am. Neg. Cas. 630; Reddington v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 108 Iowa 96, 78 N.W. 800, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 60.

Plaintiff admitted that he knew this gas was explosive and that to bring a lighted lantern near it was dangerous. A person exposing himself to a known danger assumes all ordinary risks, and is guilty of contributory negligence. Anniston Pipe Works v. Dickey, 93 Ala. 418, 9 So. 720; Noyes v. Southern P. R. Co. 3 Cal. Unrep. 293, 24 P. 927; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. R. Co. v. Collins, 87 Pa. 405, 30 Am. Rep. 371; Goldstein v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 46 Wis. 404, 1 N.W. 37; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Depew, 40 Ohio St. 127; Corlett v. Leavenworth, 27 Kan. 673; Mehan v. Syracuse, B. & N.Y. R. Co. 73 N.Y. 585; Erie v. Magill, 101 Pa. 616, 47 Am. Rep. 739; Thunborg v. Pueblo, 45 Colo. 337, 101 P. 399, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 36; Smith v. Peninsular Car Works, 60 Mich. 501, 1 Am. St. Rep. 542, 27 N.W. 662, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 42; Mitchell v. Stewart, 187 Pa. 217, 40 A. 799, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 578; Truntle v. North Star Woolen-Mill Co. 57 Minn. 521, 58 N.W. 832; 1 Labatt, Mast. & S. p. 816; Sweeney v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. 33 Minn. 153, 22 N.W. 289, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 302; Mantel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 33 Minn. 62, 21 N.W. 853.

A servant is also under a duty to pay attention to his surroundings. If he does not, he is negligent. Sours v. Great Northern R. Co. 84 Minn. 230, 87 N.W. 766.

One of the ordinary risks in handling any lighting gas, in the very nature of things, is that it may explode. Plaintiff knew this gas was explosive; that it was dangerous to bring a light near it; he had done the work a number of times before. Therefore he assumed the risks and cannot recover. Toohey v. Equitable Gas Co. 179 Pa. 437, 36 A. 314, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 185; Brown v. West Riverside Coal Co. 143 Iowa 662, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1260, 120 N.W. 732, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 646; Perkins v. Oxford Paper Co. 104 Me. 109, 71 A. 476, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 116; Young v. Randall, 104 Me. 135, 71 A. 647, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 127; Anniston Pipe Works v. Dickey, 93 Ala. 418, 9 So. 720; Noyes v. Southern P. R. Co. 3 Cal. Unrep. 293, 24 P. 927; Goldstein v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 46 Wis. 404, 1 N.W. 37; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Depew, 40 Ohio St. 127; The Serapis, 49 F. 395; Stafford v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 114 Ill. 244, 2 N.E. 185; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Bradford, 66 Tex. 732, 59 Am. Rep. 639, 2 S.W. 595; Northern Ohio R. Co. v. Rigby, 69 Ohio St. 184, 68 N.E. 1046, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 411.

There being no common-law liability, unless plaintiff has brought himself within one or more of the exceptions to that rule, the court erred as a matter of law, in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict. 2 Labatt, Mast. & S. p. 1329; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Blohn, 73 Tex. 637, 4 L.R.A. 764, 11 S.W. 867; Weisser v. Southern P. R. Co. 148 Cal. 426, 83 P. 439, 7 Ann. Cas. 636, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 88; Duff v. Willamette Steel Works, 45 Ore. 479, 78 P. 363, 668, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 120; O'Reilly v. Bowker Fertilizer Co. 174 Mass. 202, 54 N.E. 534, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 555.

George W. Freerks and Geo. E. Wallace, for respondent.

It is the duty of the master to employ only reasonably competent and careful servants. Perpich v. Leetonia Min. Co. 118 Minn. 508, 137 N.W. 12.

A master is liable for injuries to servants that spring from such negligent acts of fellow servants as are due to their incompetency. Hilts v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 55 Mich. 437, 21 N.W. 878; Lee v. Michigan C. R. Co. 87 Mich. 574, 49 N.W. 909; Nofsinger v. Goldman, 122 Cal. 609, 55 P. 425; Matthews v. Bull, 5 Cal. Unrep. 592, 47 P. 773; McElligott v. Randolph, 61 Conn. 157, 29 Am. St. Rep. 181, 22 A. 1094.

A servant is entitled to assume that the master has exercised due care and diligence in the selection and retention of reasonably competent and careful fellow servants. Giordano v. Brandywine Granite Co. 3 Penn. (Del.) 423, 52 A. 332; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 63 Ill. 293; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Jewell, 46 Ill. 99, 92 Am. Dec. 240; Hall v. Bedford Quarries Co. 156 Ind. 460, 60 N.E. 149; Nordyke & M. Co. v. Van Sant, 99 Ind. 188; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261, 38 Am. Rep. 134; Scott v. Iowa Teleph. Co. 126 Iowa 524, 102 N.W. 432; Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274, 69 Am. Dec. 317, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 500; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592, 41 Am. Dec. 771; Gilman v. Eastern R. Co. 10 Allen, 238, 87 Am. Dec. 635; Blumenthal v. Union Electric Co. 129 Iowa 322, 105 N.W. 588, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 235; Carlson v. Wilkeson Coal & Coke Co. 19 Wash. 473, 53 P. 725; Curran v. A. H. Stange Co. 98 Wis. 598, 74 N.W. 377; Northern P. R. Co. v. Mares, 123 U.S. 710, 31 L.Ed. 296, 8 S.Ct. 321; 25 Cyc. 1080.

The servant never assumes the risk of the master's negligence. Narramore v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 48 L.R.A. 68, 37 C. C. A. 499, 96 F. 298; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Northern P. R. Co. v. Mares, 123 U.S. 710, 31 L.Ed. 296, 8 S.Ct. 321; Giordano v. Brandywine Granite Co. 3 Penn. (Del.) 423, 52 A. 332; Metropolitan West Side Elev. R. Co. v. Fortin, 203 Ill. 454, 67 N.E. 977, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 283.

It is also the duty of the master to warn and instruct his servant concerning the dangers incident to his employment. This duty is most imperative where the danger is of a latent or obscure character, and where the master knows the servant to be inexperienced, or of immature age, as in this case. Wilder v. Great Western Cereal Co. 130 Iowa 263, 104 N.W. 434; 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 97; Kerker v. Bettendorf Metal Wheel Co. 140 Iowa 209, 118 N.W. 306; Johnson v. Desmond Chemical Co. 156 Mich. 669, 121 N.W. 269; Hamm v. Bettendorf Axle Co. 147 Iowa 681, 125 N.W. 186; Bell v. Northern P. R. Co. 112 Minn. 488, 128 N.W. 829; Bjbjian v. Woonsocket Rubber Co. 164 Mass. 214, 41 N.E. 265; Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Harkins, 5 C. C. A. 326, 17 U. S. App. 22, 55 F. 932; George Matthews Co. v. Bouchard, Rap. Jud. Quebec 8 B. R. 550.

OPINION

GOSS, J.

Plaintiff has recovered for personal injuries suffered through the ignition of carbyde lighting gas in the yards of the defendant company at Breckendridge, Minnesota. The plaintiff was on top of a passenger coach and engaged in recharging the gas tank. In so doing it became necessary for him to loosen the top of the tank, which top extends some inches above the roof of the coach. The tank itself extends from the top to the bottom of the coach. The refuse from the former charging had just been taken out at the bottom by the plaintiff and another employee, Frank Warnecke. It then became necessary to discharge any gas remaining in the tank, and for this purpose the plaintiff climbed upon the roof of the coach. It was about 8:30 in the evening and was getting dark. A seventeen-year old boy, Joe Bronecke, had just assisted plaintiff to bring over some carbyde and was watching plaintiff and the other employee clean out the bottom of the tank. The boy did something toward helping in this operation. His lantern, with the lanterns of the other two men, was burning while they were at work...