12 N.W.2d 192 | Minn. | 1943
As a separate defense, defendant alleged that the transit company and the city were both "under and subject to the provisions" of *194
Minn; St. 1941, §
The issue presented is a narrow one. In a helpful memorandum the trial court, after reviewing our cases, concluded that the defense tendered offered no exoneration to the pleader. Its views may be thus summarized:
"* * * The city, in the operation of the snowplow, was discharging its duty of keeping its streets in reasonably safe condition for travel, which duty it owed to the general public. The transit company, in sanding the places where patrons would board or alight from its buses, was furthering its business of transporting passengers, and, in connection therewith, taking precautions for the safety of those passengers." And, in the circumstances here shown, "there was no community of interest between the city and the [transit] company, nor was there any joint operation or control. That the two vehicles were being used at about the same place and that the employes of the two parties were in proximity to one another, was merely a fortuitous circumstance, as was the presence of the employes of the employer and third party in the case of Anderson v. Interstate Power Co.
We can find no reason for disagreeing with the court, nor do we believe anything further need be said. In addition to the Anderson case, the court also cited, among others, the following: Tevoght Y. Polson,
Order affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE LORING, absent because of accidental "injuries, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE MAGNEY: took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.