Case Title: Smedsrud v. Brown

Citation: 227 N.W.2d 572

Docket Number: 

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1975-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
227 N.W.2d 572 (1975) Walter G. SMEDSRUD, Respondent, v. Michael BROWN, Appellant. No. 45041. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 21, 1975. *573 Lommen & Cole and Phillip A. Cole, Minneapolis, for appellant. Sahr, Kunert, Tambornino & Soshnik and Peder B. Hong, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before OTIS, PETERSON, TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc. TODD, Justice. Defendant appeals from an order for judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-bailor for property damage arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by defendant and plaintiff's automobile, which was being driven by his bailee. In a prior proceeding, defendant was found to be 15-percent negligent and the bailee was found to be 85-percent negligent. Defendant seeks to limit his liability for property damage to the percentage of his negligence and asks that we reverse our prior rulings that the negligence of a bailee is not to be imputed to the bailor in a suit by the bailor against the third party. We affirm. The parties have stipulated to the facts as follows: The only issue presented is whether we should reverse the longstanding rule adopted in Christensen v. Hennepin Transp. Co. Inc., 215 Minn. 394, 10 N.W.2d 406 (1943), that the negligence of the bailee is not attributable to the bailor. Defendant contends that the adoption of comparative negligence[1] obviates the principal reason for the rule, namely, the harshness of the prior doctrine of contributory negligence. We have evidenced our dissatisfaction with the doctrine of imputed negligence. See, Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 274 Minn. 482, 144 N.W.2d 540 (1966). We have determined that the acts of employees are the acts of a corporation for purposes of determining liability. Clay County v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 296 Minn. 463, 209 N.W.2d 420 (1973). However, we have never directly passed on the issue raised by plaintiff. The Wisconsin court has considered the precise issue raised in this appeal in Schweidler v. Caruso, 269 Wis. 438, 69 N.W.2d 611 (1955). The plaintiff was a passenger in his own automobile and brought action against the driver and a truckdriver following a collision between the vehicles. Each driver cross complained against the other for contribution. The driver of plaintiff's car settled with the plaintiff and trial was held on the cross complaints. The jury found the truckdriver to be 20-percent negligent and the driver of plaintiff's vehicle to be 80-percent negligent. The Wisconsin court, finding that the plaintiff and the driver were in the relationship of bailor and bailee at the time of the collision held that the negligence of the driver would not be imputed to the plaintiff. While we are not bound to adopt the policy of our sister court, we find it to be helpful in evaluating the merits of the assertion that adoption of comparative negligence obviates the need for refusing to impute negligence. Further, we note that the refusal to impute the percentage of negligence of the bailee to the bailor is consistent with our statutory scheme. Minn.St. 604.01 provides that the person having the lesser degree of negligence shall not be barred from recovery. Here, the bailor is completely free of negligence and the defendant was 15-percent negligent. Defendant does not seek to bar plaintiff from recovery but desires to limit defendant's liability to the percentage of his negligence. Such a result would be contrary to the statutory provisions of § 604.01, which permit a plaintiff to recover from any defendant whose negligence is greater than his. Section 604.01 limits such a defendant's remedy to seeking contribution from other defendants in the percentage of their negligence. We discern no reason at this time for adopting a different rule where a bailor-bailee situation is involved. Affirmed. [1] Minn.St. 604.01, adopted May 23, 1969, effective July 1, 1969.