Hyett v. Northwestern Hospital for Women and Children
Minnesota Supreme Court
147 Minn. 413, 180 N.W. 552 (1920)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Ernest Hyett (plaintiff) worked for the Northwestern Hospital for Women and Children (Northwestern) (defendant). Hyett was injured in the course of employment. He was unable to perform his job duties for a short time due to his injuries, and he received $44 in disability compensation from Northwestern. The accident also caused an injury to Hyett’s pubic nerve that left Hyett permanently impotent but did not disable him from working. Hyett did not have a remedy under Minnesota’s workers’-compensation statute for the pubic-nerve injury, so he sued Northwestern in Minnesota state court, alleging that his pubic-nerve injury was caused by Northwestern’s negligence. Northwestern answered Hyett’s complaint, arguing, among other things, that Hyett could not bring a negligence action against Northwestern because his exclusive remedy for his injury was a claim for compensation under Minnesota’s workers’-compensation statute. Hyett filed a demurrer challenging the exclusivity argument in Northwestern’s answer, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. Northwestern appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brown, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
