The Minneapolis journal., 1902-06-20

py the, negligence OF DEFENDANTS IL appears
that both defendants are corporations organ
lied for the purpose of furnishing electric
light and power to their patrons in the con-
duct Of which business they occupied the
and We're otherwise more or less Jointly as
ISOLATED, though separate and distinct cor
porations and distinct accounts of transactions
planned Of, and for some time prior thereto
plaintiff was in the employ of both defend
ants. performing services for each company
for the time employed for each separately:
He was injured while engaged in the work of
his employment and brought this action to
recover damages therefor The evidence pre-
sented in the record. is examined and held to
justify the verdict of the jury to the effect
(D That plaintiff was in the employ Of both
defendants, and engaged in the performance
of his duties as such, at the time of his in
jury; (2) that the evidence is sufficient to sus-
tain finding that defendants were guilty of
negligence; and 60 that plaintiff did not as
sumo the risks, nor was jhe chargeable with
contributory negligence.
Second-The premises occupied by defend
ants were leased from a third person, and
were also occupied in part by other tenants.
The negligence causing plaintiffs injury was
in the alleged failure of defendants, to keep
certain trapdoors leading to the basement of
held that as defendants furnished the premises
In question place in and about which
plaintiff was to perform his work, it was their
duty to keep the same In reasonably safe
repair, and they cannot abso1ve themselves
from liability for failure tosdo so by show
Ing that the, premises were also occupied by
other tenants and as to such tenants 1t was
the duty Of the owner of the premises to
keep the same in repair.
Third--Various assignments of error con-
sdered and held to present no reversible er
Oder affirmed. .v. Brown, ].
James Murran, appellant, VS.. Chicago, Mil,
waukee & ISt. Paul Railway company, re-
SpOndent. ..' IT, ..s2-~z s. - l----'. -
Held, in a personal injury case that, upon
the evidence, the question Of defendants neg
tributory negligence, were for the jury, and
that the trial court erred when it withdrew
these questions and ordered verdict in de-
fendant's favor. = s-vs--
Order affirmed. u Brown, J.
..e -Colinsl, ].
William r. Winchell, respondent, VS.. The
st. Paul City Railway Company appellant.
First-Plaintifl signaled the motorman in
charge of one of the defendants street cars
OF his wish to take passage thereon, then
and the point where the car could come to a
stop. When within about six feet Of the
same he stumbled, by reason OF some OBJ
stacle in the street, and fell upon the track,
and was struck by the and injured: =
Held, that the motorman was not bound
to- anticipate the possibility that plaintiff
might fall upon the track, and was not gull
ty Of negligence in not having his car Under
such control that he could stop the same in
time to avoid such an accident.
Second-Evidence examined and held in
sufficient to support finding. of actionable
negligence on the part of defendant.
Order reversed. Brown, j.
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Company
respondent, VS.. Maryland Casualty Compa-
ny, appellant. ..,
The policy of insurance issued by appel
liant to respondent contained the following
provision: The assured upon the occur
renee of an accident, shall give immediate
notice thereof, in writing, with full particu-
lars. to the home office at Baltimore, Md,
or to its duly authorized agents. He shall
give like notice, with full particulars, of any
claim that may be made on account of such
accident" .....>'
An accident occurred to one of respondent 8
employees while under the supervision of a
foreman. The foreman, upon the assumption
that no injury resulted, made no report of it.
and the company obtained no information of
the occurrence from any other source. More
than year later the employe began &C
tion against respondent for damages result
ing from the accident, and received in set
tlement the sum of $3.50. Held that under
the terms of the policy it was the duty Of
respondent to report all accidents or occur
rences of which it had knowledge, and for
that purpose the foreman in charge was re-
spondent's agent Notice more than one year
later not within reasonable time, and
not within the provisions of the contract,
and appellant was accordingly relieved from
liability. =
Order reversed. Lewis, j..