fellow-servant doctrine in Minnesota

1917Furthermore, and what perhaps is more persuasive, this court more than 10 years ago, in Kline v. Minnesota Iron Co. 93 Minn. 63 , 100 N. W. 681 , held an equipment precisely of the same nature as the one used by plaintiffs a railroad within the statute abrogating the fellow servant rule as to employees operating railroads.

1917Furthermore, and what perhaps is more persuasive, this court more than 10 years ago, in Kline v. Minnesota Iron Co. 93 Minn. 63 , 100 N. W. 681 , held an equipment precisely of the same nature as the one used by plaintiffs a railroad within the statute abrogating the fellow servant rule as to employees operating railroads.

1945Knitting Co. 128 Minn. 245 , 150 N. W. 804 ; Foley v. Bennett, 219 Minn. 249 , 17 N. W. (2d) 509 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig. § 5868. *222 Under the facts herein, that duty was the absolute and nondelegable duty of defendant, and the fellow-servant rule has no application.

1945Knitting Co. 128 Minn. 245 , 150 N. W. 804 ; Foley v. Bennett, 219 Minn. 249 , 17 N. W. (2d) 509 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig. § 5868. *222 Under the facts herein, that duty was the absolute and nondelegable duty of defendant, and the fellow-servant rule has no application.

1945Knitting Co. 128 Minn. 245 , 150 N. W. 804 ; Foley v. Bennett, 219 Minn. 249 , 17 N. W. (2d) 509 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig. § 5868. *222 Under the facts herein, that duty was the absolute and nondelegable duty of defendant, and the fellow-servant rule has no application.

1945Knitting Co. 128 Minn. 245 , 150 N. W. 804 ; Foley v. Bennett, 219 Minn. 249 , 17 N. W. (2d) 509 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig. § 5868. *222 Under the facts herein, that duty was the absolute and nondelegable duty of defendant, and the fellow-servant rule has no application.

1943N.W. 433, 435, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 811, said of the fellow-servant rule that "it can only be invoked as to servants engaged in prosecution of a common enterprise ." (Italics supplied.) In Kelly v. Tyra, 103 Minn. 176 , 114 N.W. 750 , 751 , 115 N.W. 636 , 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 334 , we spoke of servants employed by different contractors engaged in erecting a building as being engaged "in a common employment" to make possible by their cooperation "common objects." It is said that fellow servants must be engaged "in the same general business." 4 Dunnell, Dig. *Page 514 § 5947, where our cases are collected

1943N.W. 433, 435, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 811, said of the fellow-servant rule that "it can only be invoked as to servants engaged in prosecution of a common enterprise ." (Italics supplied.) In Kelly v. Tyra, 103 Minn. 176 , 114 N.W. 750 , 751 , 115 N.W. 636 , 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 334 , we spoke of servants employed by different contractors engaged in erecting a building as being engaged "in a common employment" to make possible by their cooperation "common objects." It is said that fellow servants must be engaged "in the same general business." 4 Dunnell, Dig. *Page 514 § 5947, where our cases are collected

1943N.W. 433, 435, 45 L.R.A.(N.S.) 811, said of the fellow-servant rule that "it can only be invoked as to servants engaged in prosecution of a common enterprise ." (Italics supplied.) In Kelly v. Tyra, 103 Minn. 176 , 114 N.W. 750 , 751 , 115 N.W. 636 , 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 334 , we spoke of servants employed by different contractors engaged in erecting a building as being engaged "in a common employment" to make possible by their cooperation "common objects." It is said that fellow servants must be engaged "in the same general business." 4 Dunnell, Dig. *Page 514 § 5947, where our cases are collected

1943Co. 319 U. S. 715, 720 , 63 S. Ct. 1271, 1274 , 87 L. ed. ..., the Supreme Court of the United States said: “The common-law defenses, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow-servant rule were originated and developed in common ground.

1943Co. 319 U. S. 715, 720 , 63 S. Ct. 1271, 1274 , 87 L. ed. ..., the Supreme Court of the United States said: “The common-law defenses, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow-servant rule were originated and developed in common ground.

1939The case was *599 submitted upon the assumption that the workmen’s compensation act applies only to personal injuries and not to property damage, see 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 4261, and London G. & A. Co. v. Industrial Comm. 80 Col. 162 , 249 P. 642 , and that plaintiff’s right of recovery, if any, is to be determined by common-law principles.

1923Co. 142 Minn. 376 , 172 N. W. 765 , might, by waiving the law abolishing the fellow servant rule, and by submitting to the defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, bring an action under the old law and thus have the benefit of the old statute of limitations.

1923Co. 142 Minn. 376 , 172 N. W. 765 , might, by waiving the law abolishing the fellow servant rule, and by submitting to the defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, bring an action under the old law and thus have the benefit of the old statute of limitations.

1912And these propositions, among others,, are laid down: While the rank of the servant performing the master’s absolute duties is immaterial (Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , 42 N. W. 1020 , 4 L.R.A. 793 ), it is of significant importance, however, when the foreman or superintendent is performing the same (Carlson v. Northwestern Tel.

1912And these propositions, among others,, are laid down: While the rank of the servant performing the master’s absolute duties is immaterial (Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , 42 N. W. 1020 , 4 L.R.A. 793 ), it is of significant importance, however, when the foreman or superintendent is performing the same (Carlson v. Northwestern Tel.