## Facts

- Joseph C. Weber operated a vending-machine business and employed Maynard S. Sunken.
- While on business, Sunken drove Weber’s pickup truck with Weber as a passenger.
- The truck collided with a pickup owned by Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., driven by its employee, Warren Curtis Musser, acting within the scope of employment.
- Weber sued Stokely-Van Camp for Musser’s negligence, seeking damages for personal injuries and vehicle damage.
- Stokely-Van Camp denied negligence and asserted Sunken was contributorily negligent and that Sunken’s negligence should be imputed to Weber, barring recovery.
- Evidence showed Weber often told Sunken where to go and which route to take; Sunken controlled the actual manner of driving but would have obeyed directions if given.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Sunken’s negligence would be imputed to Weber as a matter of law.
- The jury returned a verdict for Stokely-Van Camp; the trial court denied Weber’s post-trial motions, and Weber appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee-driver’s contributory negligence is imputed to an employer-passenger to bar the employer’s recovery against a negligent third party in an automobile accident because the employer is vicariously liable to third persons.
2. Whether alleged juror misconduct warranted a new trial and whether post-trial juror affidavits could be used to impeach the verdict.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the automatic “both-way” imputed-negligence rule in automobile negligence cases.
- The court held that a servant’s contributory negligence is not imputed to the master to bar the master’s claim against a negligent third party merely because the master may be vicariously liable to others.
- The court held juror affidavits describing deliberations cannot be used to impeach the verdict.
- The court concluded the alleged misconduct outside deliberations did not justify a new trial under the governing standards and affirmed denial of a new trial on that ground.

## Legal Principles

- In automobile negligence cases, the contributory negligence of an employee-driver is not automatically imputed to an employer-passenger to defeat the employer’s claim against a negligent third party based solely on potential vicarious liability.
- Imputed negligence based on a theoretical “right of control” is not a sufficient basis, in this context, to bar an otherwise fault-free plaintiff’s recovery.
- Jurors may not impeach their verdict by affidavits or testimony describing conduct or discussions occurring during deliberations.
- Claims of juror misconduct occurring outside the jury room require a showing of prejudicial effect under established procedures and do not warrant a new trial absent sufficient prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court eliminated automatic imputation of an employee-driver’s contributory negligence to an employer-passenger in automobile cases, while reaffirming strict limits on using juror affidavits to attack verdicts and upholding the denial of a new trial for alleged juror misconduct.


Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 540 (Minn. 1966)