HOYT
v.
THOMPSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act because the alleged injuries were not sustained while the employees were acting in furtherance of the defendant's business.
Plaintiff sued under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for her husband's death, alleging he was injured by fellow employees wrestling over a bar of…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Furtherance Of Employer'S Business cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff brought this action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51, to recover damages for injuries sustained by her husband while an employee of the defendant, which injuries allegedly resulted in his death. On defendant’s motion, the lower court on November 3, 1948 dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and the instant appeal is from such order. As to the manner in which the injuries were sustained, the complaint alleges:
“Two other employees of defendant were attempting to gain possesion of a bar of soap provided by defendant for his employees’ use at said premises and engaged in wrestling and scuffling about and in an altercation for the possession of said bar of soap and the use of said wash basin. While they were so engaged in scuffling about for the use of said wash basin they approached the wash basin where plaintiff’s decedent was at in the act of washing and unnoticed to plaintiff’s decedent suddenly and without warning one of the other said employees swung around in such a manner as to strike plaintiff’s decedent very sharply and violently with great force with his elbow on plaintiff’s decedent’s jaw causing plaintiff’s decedent to sustain serious injuries.”
While other questions were raised by defendant’s motion to dismiss, we think that the only one necessary for decision is whether defendant is liable for injuries sustained by the decedent at the hands of fellow employees as a result of their engagement in “wrestling and scuffling.” The answer to this question depends upon whether such employees while so engaged were acting in the furtherance of the defendant’s business.
No good purpose could be served in an attempt to discuss or analyze the authorities relied upon, by the plaintiff. We have examined them and think they are not in point. We agree with the lower court that no cause of action was stated. Cf. Davis v. Green, 260 U.S. 349, 43 S.Ct. 123, 67 L. Ed. 299; Sheaf v. Minneapolis St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 162 F. 2d 110; Reeve v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 82 Wash. 268, 144 P. 63, L.R.A. 1915C, 37.
The order appealed from is
Affirmed..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. CSX Transp., Inc., 577 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
-
Lancaster v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 773 F.2d 807 (7th Cir. 1985)
-
Baker v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 502 F.2d 638 (6th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Green, 260 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1922)
- Sheaf v. Minneapolis, 162 F.2d 110 (8th Cir. 1947)