Legal Opinion

Workman v. Endriss

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 11, 1925No. 24,633PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, C.

Action for personal injuries. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for defendant on the ground that plaintiff’s sole remedy was under the' Workmen’s Compensation Act. We think this ruling was correct.

Defendant, under the name of Peerless Scale Company, was engaged in the business of placing and operating automatic machines such as weighing machines and post-card, guin and other vending machines, and had a hundred or more placed in various localities at Minneapolis and other places. Frequent repairs were necessary to keep these machines in proper working…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Lennon v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  2. State ex rel. City of Northfield v. District Court of Rice CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Klein v. McClearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  4. State ex rel. Nienaber v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. O'Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  2. Behr v. SothSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  3. Cunning v. City of HopkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  4. Gahr v. StroutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  5. Kolbeck v. MyhraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1959

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API