Case Name: JOHN BIRMINGHAM v. DULUTH, MISSABE & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1897-12-20
Citations: 70 Minn. 474
Docket Number: Nos. 10,647-(61)
Parties: JOHN BIRMINGHAM v. DULUTH, MISSABE & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 474–482

Head Matter:
JOHN BIRMINGHAM v. DULUTH, MISSABE & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
December 20, 1897.
Nos. 10,647—(61).
Pleading — Complaint—Sufficiency—Negligence—Injury to Employee. In an action to recover for personal injuries caused by tbe alleged negligence of tbe defendant, held, that the complaint was not demurrable on the ground that it did not state a cause of action, in that it appeared on its face that tbe plaintiff’s injuries were caused either by bis own negligence or by that of a fellow servant.
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $15,000 for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant company. Defendant demurred to the complaint. The substance of the allegations of the complaint is stated in the opinion of CANTY, J. From an order overruling the demurrer, Ensign, J., defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Joseph B. Ootton and Geo. Welwood Murray, for appellant.
The parties were not engaged in the actual operation of a railroad within the meaning of Laws 1887, c. 13. Lavallee v. St. Paul, 40 Minn. 249 (1889). Cushing’s act, causing the injuries to plaintiff, was the act of a fellow servant. Lind vail v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212; Brown v. Winona, 27 Minn. 162; Fraser v. Red River, 42 Minn. 520; Marsh v. Herman, 47 Minn. 537; Ell v. Northern Pacific, 1 N. D. 336; Blo-mquist v. Chicago, 60 Minn. 426; Carlson v. Northwestern, 63 Minn. 428; Soutar v. Minneapolis, 68 Minn. 18; Lundberg v. Shevlin, 68 Minn. 135. See, also, Anderson v. C. N. Nelson, 67 Minn. 79; Kielley v. Belcher, 3 Sawyer, 500; McLean v. Blue Point, 51 Cal. 255; Wood v. New Bedford, 121 Mass. 252; Kelley v. Norcross, 121 Mass. 508; Bergstrom v. Staples, 82 Mich. 654; Ell v. Northern Pacific, supra; Olson v. St. Paul, 38 Minn. 117; Anderson v. Winston, 31 Fed. 528; Crispin v. Babbitt, 81 N. Y. 516; Cullen v. Norton, 126 N. Y. 1; Friedrich v. City, 68 Minn. 402; Heine v. Chicago, 58 Wis. 525; Hennig v. Globe (Mich.) 71 N. W. 156; Morch v. Toledo (Mich.) 71 N. W. 464; Cowles v. Chicago, 102 Iowa, 507. Laws 1895, c. 173, is merely declaratory of the common law and does not change the rule of law as to contributory negligence and assumption of risks by the servant. Lundberg v. Shevlin, supra; Hess v. Adamant, 66 Minn. 79; Soutar v. Minneapolis, supra.
The defendant performed all its duties in respect to instrumentalities if and when it furnished machinery of the same kind and style as is in common use generally where the same or similar work is performed. Werbowlsky v. Fort, 86 Mich. 236; Murphy v. Great Northern, 68 Minn. 526; Griggs v. City, 9 Minn. 231 (246); Mann v. Morewood, 5 Sandf. 557, 564; Flynn v. City, 134 Mass. 351; How-land v. Milwaukee, 54 Wis. 226; Collier v. Steinhart, 51 Cal. 116; Hanna v. Granger, 18 R. I. 507; Hart v. Peters (Wis.) 13 N. W. 219; Crown v. Orr, 140 N. Y. 450; Larich v. Moies, 18 R. I. 513; Loughlin v. State, 105 N. Y. 159; Hofnagle v. New York, 55 N. Y. 608; McCosker v. Long Island, 84 N. Y. 77; Laning v. New York, 49 N. Y. 521; Stutz v. Armour, 84 Wis. 623; Kliegel v. Weisel, 84 Wis. 148; Dwyer v. American, 82 Wis. 307; Kenney v. Shaw, 133 Mass. 501; Flynn v. City, 134 Mass. 351; Thompson v. Chicago, 18 Fed. 239; Buckley v. Gould, 14 Fed. 833.
H. H. Phelps, for respondent.
It is not necessary to charge negligence in terms if facts are set out which raise a presumption of negligence. 2 Thompson, Neg. 1246, § 26, and cases cited; Blue v. Briggs, 12 Ind. App. 105; Louisville v. Stommel, 126 Ind. 35; Franklin v. Winona, 37 Minn. 409; Myhre v. Tromanhauser, 64 Minn. 541; Bolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 14; Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212; Carlson v. Northwestern, 63 Minn. 428; Blomquist v. Chicago, 60 Minn. 426, 433, 434; Abel v. Butler-Ryan, 66 Minn. 16; Hess v. Adamant, 66 Minn. 79; Johnson v. Minneapolis, 67 Minn. 141; Lundberg v. Shevlin-Carpenter, 68 Minn. 135; Friedrich v. City, 68 Minn. 402; Murphy v. Great Northern, 68 Minn. 526.
A general allegation of negligence is sufficient to admit proof of particular acts constituting negligence and is good against demurrer. Clark v. Chicago, 28 Minn. 69; Roger v. Truesdale, 57 Minn. 126; Pittsburg v. Welch, 12 Ind. App. 433; Citizens v. Lowe, 12 Ind. App. 47; Ohio v. Craycraft, 5 Ind. App. 335; Preston v. St. Johnsbury, 64 Vt. 280.
Reported in 73 N. W. 409.

Opinion:
MITCHELL, J.
This was an action to recover for personal injuries resulting from the 'alleged negligence of the defendant. The appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. The contention of the defendant is that it appears from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff's injuries were caused either by his own negligence or by that of his fellow servant, one Cushing, the foreman and engineer; it being admitted by the plaintiff that the case does not fall within G. S. 1894, § 2701. Inasmuch as negligence is a mixed question of law and fact, and hence an allegation that a thing was negligently done or omitted one of fact, and not a mere conclusion of law, it is very rarely the case that a defendant can successfully demur to such a complaint, unless the pleader had purposely attempted to commit legal suicide. As was said in Rolseth v. Smith, 38 Minn. 14, 35 N. W. 565:
"Perhaps a fair test of the sufficiency of the pleading in that regard is whether, under its allegations, evidence might be introduced sufficient to establish a cause of action."
The complaint in this case is so lengthy, by reason of statements of matters of detail, that it must be left to speak for itself. And as it is impossible to say, in advance, what light the evidence will cast upon the situation, it might be misleading rather than helpful to enter into any extended analysis or discussion of the facts alleged.
Upon the question of plaintiff's, own conduct, all we deem it necessary to say is that it does not appear — not conclusively, at least — that he was guilty of contributory negligence, or that he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to have known, all the risks incident to the execution of the order of the foreman. Upon the facts alleged, that would be, at least, a question for the jury. The fact that contributory negligence need not be negatived in the complaint, but is purely a matter of defense, adds force to this view. Leaving out of view for the present any other charge of negligence against the defendant, it might, under the allegations of the complaint, be a question for the jury whether, under the circumstances, it was not the duty of the defendant to give the plaintiff warning of the risks incident to the performance of his duties. If it was, this was an absolute duty of the master, for the neglect of which he could not absolve himself by leaving the performance of it to .some one else. If such a duty rested on the defendant, the foreman, Cushing, who was the only person present who had charge of the work and of the men, was, as to the performance of that duty, the representative of the defendant and for his negligence, if any, in that regard, the defendant is responsible. The fact that the same person was both foreman and engineer, and 'that in the latter respect he was a mere fellow servant with the plaintiff, does not alter the case.
Order affirmed.