Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/762

 they ‘find the facts only,’ and the trial judge determines their legal effect.” Morrison v. Lee, 13 N. D. 591; Ward v. Chicago, M. & St Paul Ry. Co. (Wis.) 78 N. W. 443. .

“It is reversible error for the court to give general instructions on any subject involved in a special verdict, well calculated to inform the jury how to answer in order to enable one of the parties to recover.” Byington v. City of Merrill, (Wis.) 88 N. W. 26.

Sullivan, Hanley & Sullivan, for respondents.

“A master is liable for damages caused by the negligence of his servant within the scope and in the course of his employment, although he neither directs nor is aware of it.” Standard Oil Company v. Barkinson, 152 Fed. 681—82 C. C. A. 29; See cases cited 2nd Dec. Master and Servant vol. 15, 25 Key Number 304-34 Cent. Digest Master and Servant 1226-1229.

“The concurrent negligence of a third person is not a defense. 26 Cyc. 1531 Andrews v. Boedecker 126 Ill. 605, 18 N. E. 651, 9 Am St. Rep. 649, (affirming 27 Ill. App. 30); Lane v. Atlantic Works 107 Mass. 104.

“Where the negligence of a servant is an effective cause of injury, the intervention, between the negligence of the servant and the injury, of the negligence of another person which immediately causes the injury does not relieve the master from his liability for the negligence of his servant.” Engelhart v. Tarrant, (1897) I. O. B. 240-66 L. J. O. B. 122- 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 617-45 Weekly Rep. 197.

“16 Concurrent negligence of two responsible persons. The general doctrine is that it is no defense, in actions for injuries resulting from negligence, that the negligence of third persons, or an inevitable accident, or an inanimate thing, contributed to cause the injury to the plaintiff, if the negligence of the defendant was an efficient cause, without which the injury would not have occurred. In other words, where a defendant is guilty of negligence, which causes an injury, and the plaintiff is free from negligence contributing thereto, the fact that the negligence of a third person also contributed does not relieve the defendant from liability for his negligence.” 22 R. C. L. pp. 128-129; See also Concurrent Causes—Negligence Dec. Digest J 61.

“It is no defense to an action for a negligent injury that the negligence of a third person, or an inevitable accident, or an inanimate thing,