| Minn. | Feb 2, 1887
Lead Opinion
The action was properly dismissed. Assuming that it was negligence on the part of the foreman at the round-house to order plaintiff to do the particular thing in which he was hurt, it was the negligence of a fellow-servant. There was no evidence of a failure on the part of defendant to furnish, for the use of its servants at the round-house, all proper and necessary instruments to do the work as safely as it can be done, nor that the foreman was not a skilful and competent man. The case is directly within the decision in
Order affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent. I think that McCuteheon, the foreman in charge of the round-house, from whom plaintiff received his orders, was, as respects this plaintiff, a vice-principal, and represented the defendant master.