Hoyt v. Thompson

174 F.2d 284, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 1949
DocketNo. 9760
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 174 F.2d 284 (Hoyt v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoyt v. Thompson, 174 F.2d 284, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190 (7th Cir. 1949).

Opinion

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..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Amanda Beech v. Hercules Drilling Co., L.L.C.
691 F.3d 566 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)
Martin v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
926 F. Supp. 1044 (N.D. Alabama, 1996)
Bryant v. CSX Transp., Inc.
577 So. 2d 613 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Richard Gallose v. Long Island Railroad Company
878 F.2d 80 (Second Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 F.2d 284, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-thompson-ca7-1949.