Atlantic Refining Co. v. Leffingwell & Berry
| Decision Date | 17 January 1911 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC REFINING CO. v. LEFFINGWELL & BERRY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Manatee County; J. B. Wall, Judge.
Action by Leffingwell & Berry against the Atlantic Refining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where a corporation operates a mining plant, and does not authorize its superintendents to employ a physician at the expense of the corporation to attend an employé injured by the machinery of the plant, the law does not imply such authority, at least where there is testimony that such authority was not given or contemplated by those exercising the rights of the corporation. The liability of the corporation for negligence that proximately injures an employé may extend to medical services to an injured employé, but this does not create a contract liability for such services.
COUNSEL C. C. Whitaker, for plaintiff in error.
Singeltary & Reaves and W. A. Carter, for defendant in error.
The declaration herein is as follows: 'John B. Leffingwell and Ned C. Berry, copartners doing business under the firm name of Leffingwell & Berry, plaintiffs, by their attorneys Singeltary & Reaves, sues the Atlantic Refining Company, a corporation, for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for this, that heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of May, A. D. 1906, the said defendant was indebted to the plaintiffs for medical attendance, advice, and medicine given and provided by the plaintiffs to and for one Thomas Urquhart, an employé of the defendant, at the special instance and request of the said defendant of the value of $1,000; and in the further sum of $1,000 for work and labor done by the plaintiffs for the defendant, at its request; and in a like sum for money found to be due the plaintiffs from the defendant on an account stated between them; and in a like sum for interest on divers sums of money forborne by the plaintiffs to the use of the defendant, at and before the date aforesaid; and being so indebted, the defendant, in consideration of the premises, promised to pay to the plaintiffs the said several sums of money so due them as aforesaid which the plaintiffs have often requested the defendant to so do, but the said defendant has disregarded its said promise and has failed, neglected, and refused to pay the said several sums of money to the plaintiffs, or any part thereof, to the great damage of the plaintiffs wherefore they bring this suit and claim as their damage the sum of nineteen hundred dollars.'
A trial was had on a plea of never was indebted as alleged. Verdict and judgment for $1,000 and interest were rendered for te plaintiff, a new trial was denied, and the defendant took writ of error with a bill of exceptions. The transcript contains no evidence of an account stated, or of a promise to pay as alleged, therefore the last two counts of the declaration may summarily be regarded as not proven in whole or in part. The other two counts are based on services alleged to have been rendered, the second at the defendant's request, and the first at the defendant's special instance and request.
The evidence in effect is that on February 9, 1906, an employé in the mining plant of the defendant corporation was injured by machinery in the plant, and a superintendent of the mine, Mr Wadham, telephoned the plaintiff Leffingwell, a physician, to come to the injured man and to bring another doctor with him. The two plaintiffs went to the place several miles distant in Leffingwell's launch, and were met by the superintendent, Mr. Wadham, who called the physician, and Mr. Parmenter, another superintendent of the mining plant who took them to the injured man, and asked them to take charge of him, and Mr. Parmenter asked for a statement of the condition of the injured man to be sent to the home office of the corporation in Philadelphia, Pa. The superintendents stated to the doctors that the man was injured by the machinery of the defendant, and requested the physicians to take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...See Cushman v. Cloverland Coal Mining Co., 170 Ind. 402, 84 N. E. 759, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1078, 127 Am. St. Rep. 391;Atlantic Refining Co. v. Leffingwell, 61 Fla. 101, 54 South. 266, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 351;Marquette & O. R. Co. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289; Stephenson v. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 2 Due......
-
E.O. Painter Fertilizer Co. v. Boyd
... ... See ... Hoopes v. Crane, 56 Fla. 395, 47 So. 992; ... Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Whitney, 65 Fla. 72, ... 61 So. 179; Mitchell v ... Atlantic Refining Co. v. Leflingwell, 61 Fla. 101, ... 54 So. 266, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 351 ... ...
-
Ward v. J. Samuels & Bro., Inc.
...or mercantile establishment cannot bind the employer or corporation for medical services. In the case of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Leffingwell & Berry, 61 Fla. 101, 54 South. 266, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 351, the opinion of the court is well summarized in the headnote as "Where a corporation ope......
- Cumberland Sav. & Trust Co. v. Mcgriff