Wyldes v. Patterson

• Citation: 153 N.W. 630,31 N.D. 282
• Decision Date: 29 April 1915
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

153 N.W. 630

31 N.D. 282

RICHARD WYLDES, an Infant, by J. M. McLaughlin, his Guardian, v. E. G. PATTERSON

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 29, 1915

Rehearing denied July 2, 1915.

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, Nuessle, J.

Action for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

P. J McLaughlin and H. C. Bradley, for appellant.

The mere fact that an injury is caused by defective appliance does not prove negligence, unless the defect is of such a nature that reasonable prudence and ordinary care ought to have discovered it. Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co. 13 N.D. 432, 101 N.W. 183.

When the master has performed his whole duty to the servant recovery is denied for an injury to the servant in the employment, not because of his assumption of the risk, but because he never had any cause of action, for his cause of action would necessarily be based upon his employer's negligence, and where there is no negligence, there can be no recovery. Naylor v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 53 Wis 661, 11 N.W. 24; Stephenson v. Duncan, 73 Wis. 406, 9 Am. St. Rep. 806, 41 N.W. 337; Gilbert v. Guild, 144 Mass. 601, 12 N.E. 368; Sullivan v. India Mfg. Co. 113 Mass. 398, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 527.

Railroad companies are negligent when they fail to block frogs; but where a brakeman or switchman knows of the failure in that respect, he assumes the risk, and cannot recover. Mayes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 63 Iowa 562, 14 N.W. 340, 19 N.W. 680; Appel v. Buffalo, N.Y. & P. R. Co. 111 N.Y. 550, 19 N.E. 93; Ireland v. Gardner, 54 Hun, 634, 7 N.Y.S. 609; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 54 Ark. 389, 26 Am. St. Rep. 48, 15 S.W. 895; Grand v. Michigan C. R. Co. 83 Mich. 564, 11 L.R.A. 402, 47 N.W. 837; Way v. Illinois C. R. Co. 40 Iowa 341, 14 Am. Neg. Cas. 621; Anderson v. Minnesota & N.W. R. Co. 39 Minn. 523, 41 N.W. 104; O'Keefe v. Thorn, 2 Monaghan (Pa.) 73, 16 A. 737; Crowley v. Pacific Mills, 148 Mass. 228, 19 N.E. 344; Townsend v. Langles, 41 F. 919; Hickey v. Taaffe, 105 N.Y. 26, 12 N.E. 286; Clark v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 28 Minn. 128, 9 N.W. 581, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 280; Raines v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 71 Mo. 164, 36 Am. Rep. 459; Brossman v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 113 Pa. 490, 57 Am. Rep. 479, 6 A. 226; Hughes v. Winona & St. P. R. Co. 27 Minn. 137, 6 N.W. 553; Larson v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 43 Minn. 423, 45 N.W. 722; Larson v. Knapp, S. & Co. 98 Wis. 178, 73 N.W. 992; Cleary v. Dakota Pkg. Co. 71 Minn. 150, 73 N.W. 717, 1099; Powell v. Ashland Iron & Steel Co. 98 Wis. 35, 73 N.W. 573; Walsh v. St. Paul & D. R. Co. 27 Minn. 367, 8 N.W. 145; Hayball v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. 114 Mich. 135, 72 N.W. 145; Soderstrom v. Holland Emery Lumber Co. 114 Mich. 83, 72 N.W. 13; Lundberg v. Minneapolis Iron Store Co. 115 Minn. 174, 131 N.W. 1016; Olson v. McMullen, 34 Minn. 94, 24 N.W. 318; Martin v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 118 Iowa 148, 59 L.R.A. 698, 96 Am. St. Rep. 371, 91 N.W. 1034, 10 Am. Neg. Rep. 592; Swanson v. Great Northern R. Co. 68 Minn. 184, 70 N.W. 978, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 578; Quick v. Minnesota Iron Co. 47 Minn. 361, 50 N.W. 244; Scharenbroich v. St. Cloud Fibre-Ware Co. 59 Minn. 116, 60 N.W. 1093; McCutcheon v. Virginia & Rainy Lake Co. 114 Minn. 226, 130 N.W. 1023; Mackin v. Alaska Refrigerator Co. 100 Mich. 276, 58 N.W. 999; Com. v. Pierce, 138 Mass. 176, 52 Am. Rep. 264, 5 Am. Crim. Rep. 391.

Conceding that there were well-known instrumentalities for his protection, whatever the ethical obligation of the employer might be to furnish them, under the law, the servant may waive that performance by engaging to do the work without the same. Nelson v. Kelso, 91 Minn. 77, 97 N.W. 459; Williams v. Bunker Hill & S. Min. & Concentrating Co. 190 F. 79; Wilson v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 145 Mich. 509, 108 N.W. 1021; Beleal v. Northern P. R. Co. 15 N.D. 318, 108 N.W. 33, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 453, 11 Ann. Cas. 921; Carlson v. Sioux Falls Water Co. 8 S.D. 47, 65 N.W. 419; Hunt v. Kile, 38 C. C. A. 641, 98 F. 49; Bartley v. Howell, 82 Minn. 382, 85 N.W. 167; Buckley v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co. 113 N.Y. 540, 21 N.E. 717, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 842; Berger v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 39 Minn. 78, 38 N.W. 814, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 251; Hefferen v. Northern P. R. Co. 45 Minn. 471, 48 N.W. 1, 526, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 254; Mississippi River Logging Co. v. Schneider, 20 C. C. A. 390, 34 U.S. App. 743, 74 F. 195; Dunn v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. 161 Mich. 551, 126 N.W. 833; Kraczek v. Falk Co. 142 Wis. 570, 126 N.W. 30; Ward v. Scott, 182 Mass. 170, 64 N.E. 968; Bauer v. American Car & Foundry Co. 132 Mich. 537, 94 N.W. 9; Sweet v. Ohio Coal Co. 78 Wis. 127, 9 L.R.A. 861, 47 N.W. 182; Johnson v. Hovey, 98 Mich. 343, 57 N.W. 172; Williams v. J. G. Wagner Co. 110 Wis. 456, 86 N.W. 157; Upthegrove v. Jones & A. Coal Co. 118 Wis. 673, 96 N.W. 385, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 670; McCarthy v. Mulgrew, 107 Iowa 76, 77 N.W. 527; Vanderpool v. Partridge, 79 Neb. 165, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 668, 112 N.W. 318; Porter v. Ocean S. S. Co. 113 Ga. 1007, 39 S.E. 177; Evans Laundry Co. v. Crawford, 67 Neb. 153, 93 N.W. 117, 94 N.W. 814, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 355; Martin v. Detroit Lumber Co. 141 Mich. 363, 104 N.W. 692; Thompson v. Missouri P. R. Co. 51 Neb. 527, 71 N.W. 61, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 53; New Omaha Thompson-Houston Electric Light Co. v. Rombold, 73 Neb. 272, 102 N.W. 475, 106 N.W. 213; Yess v. Chicago Brass Co. 124 Wis. 406, 102 N.W. 932; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet, 129 Ind. 327, 27 N.E. 741; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Marcan, 54 L.R.A. 258, 45 C. C. A. 515, 106 F. 645, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 670; Storrs v. Michigan Starch Co. 126 Mich. 666, 86 N.W. 134; Boss v. Northern P. R. Co. 2 N.D. 136, 33 Am. St. Rep. 756, 49 N.W. 655; Songstad v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. 5 Dak. 522, 41 N.W. 755.

The engineer, in doing the work in which he was engaged at the time of the accident, was a fellow servant, for whose negligence the defendant is not responsible. The rule which makes the master liable under such circumstances is harsh and technical, and without the basis of inherent justice. Ames v. Lowry, 30 Minn. 285, 15 N.W. 247; Brown v. Winona & St. P. R. Co. 27 Minn. 162, 38 Am. Rep. 285, 6 N.W. 484; Foster v. Minnesota C. R. Co. 14 Minn. 360, Gil. 277; O'Neil v. Great Northern R. Co. 80 Minn. 27, 51 L.R.A. 532, 82 N.W. 1086; Collins v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. 30 Minn. 31, 14 N.W. 60; Jemming v. Great Northern R. Co. 96 Minn. 302, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 696, 104 N.W. 1079; Doerr v. Daily News Pub. Co. 97 Minn. 248, 106 N.W. 1044; Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212, 4 L.R.A. 793, 42 N.W. 1020, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 200; Reed v. Stockmeyer, 20 C. C. A. 381, 34 U.S. App. 727, 74 F. 186; Lundquist v. Duluth Street R. Co. 65 Minn. 387, 67 N.W. 1006.

A question put to an expert, which requires his opinion upon the exact question which is for the jury to determine, is improper. Taylor v. Grand Ave. R. Co. 185 Mo. 239, 84 S.W. 873; Roscoe v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 202 Mo. 576, 101 S.W. 32.

The photographs, and testimony in relation thereto, should have been received in evidence, and their rejection was prejudicial error which entitles defendant to a new trial. Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co. 124 Minn. 65, 144 N.W. 434.

An instruction which gives the jury the right to find a verdict for plaintiff, "if they find that plaintiff has established to their satisfaction that his injury was caused by the defendant's negligence, on any of the grounds charged in the complaint," is erroneous and misleading. It was clearly shown that a signal system was necessary to do the work. The attention of the jury should have been specifically directed to this, and to nothing else. Hunt v. Kile, 38 C. C. A. 641, 98 F. 49.

Andrew Miller and W. P. Costello, for respondent.

Whether the lack of signal system was or was not the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury. Before the judge can take the question from the jury and determine it himself, the facts must not only be undisputed, but the inference to be drawn from these facts must be such that fair-minded men ought not to differ about them. 1 Thomp. Neg. § 161; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 508.

If the engineer knew of such condition and was guilty of negligence in acting as he did, knowing the plaintiff's perilous position, this fact would not relieve defendant from liability, because it would simply amount to the combined negligence of the engineer and the defendant. Bode v. New England Invest. Co. 1 N.D. 128, 45 N.W. 197.

It is well settled, that it is the absolute duty of the master to furnish reasonably safe instrumentalities, and that the servant assumes no risks incident to the failure of the master to perform such duty. Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co. 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Cook v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 34 Minn. 45, 24 N.W. 311, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 247.

The burden of proving that the injured servant assumed such risks is upon the defendant, and it is a question for the jury. Dowd v. New York, O. & W. R. Co. 170 N.Y. 459, 63 N.E. 541; Johnson v. Griffiths-Sprague Stevedoring Co. 45 Wash. 278, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 432, 88 P. 193.

The fellow-servant doctrine is here immaterial, because there is ample evidence of defendant's negligence, and that this was the proximate cause of the injury, and was properly submitted to the jury. Ness v. Jones, 10 N.D. 587, 88 Am. St. Rep. 755, 88 N.W. 706; Hall v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 60, 111 N.W. 609, 14 Ann. Cas. 960.

An objection must state the ground thereof, and point out specifically the errors of which complaint is made, in order to give opportunity to correct them, in order to be availing. 8 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 163.

It is no objection to a hypothetical question that the state of facts which it assumes is erroneous, if within the probable or even...