Augusta Friedman's Shop, Inc., v. Yeates
| Decision Date | 28 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 770 |
| Citation | 113 So. 299,216 Ala. 434 |
| Parties | AUGUSTA FRIEDMAN'S SHOP, INC., v. YEATES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C.B. Smith, Judge.
Action for damages by Marie Yeates, by her next friend Mrs. Harry C Yeates, against Augusta Friedman's Shop, Inc., and another, for negligent burning of plaintiff's scalp in and about the work of curling or permanently waving plaintiff's hair. From a judgment for plaintiff, the corporate defendant alone appeals. Affirmed.
Leader & Ullman and Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Mullins & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Of course, the injury complained of must have been inflicted by an agent or servant of the defendant while acting within the line and scope of the employment or as so held out by it. The evidence tends to establish the fact that the plaintiff's scalp was injured through the negligence of an employee of the Augusta Friedman Beauty Salon, and the question arises Was the appellant, the Augusta Friedman Shop, Inc., the owner in whole or in part in the Augusta Friedman Beauty Salon, or did the former hold itself out as the owner or proprietor of the latter? It is a well-established rule of law that, when one holds himself out as the owner or partner in a business, and third persons are thereby misled or injured, the person so holding himself out is liable to the same extent as if he was the owner or partner, although there may have been no proprietorship or partnership inter sese. Fertilizer Co. v. Reynolds, 85 Ala. 23; 4 So. 639; Levy v. Alexander, 95 Ala. 101, 10 So. 394; Cain v. Standard Co., 108 Ala. 348, 18 So. 882. And this rule also applies as to principal and agent. 2 C.J. §§ 70, 71, p. 461; Meacham on Agency,§§ 83, 84; Gibson v. Snow, 94 Ala. 346, 10 So. 304; Sou. R.R. v. Beaty, 212 Ala. 608, 103 So. 658. This doctrine of liability applies to torts as well as contracts whenever the tort consists of the violation of a duty which springs from the contract. Hannon v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 167 N.Y. 244, 60 N.E. 597, 52 L.R.A. 429. Indeed, this case is quite similar to the case in hand; the only difference being a dental parlor instead of beauty salon.
The record contains evidence which afforded a reasonable inference for the jury that the appellant held itself out to the plaintiff and public generally as the owner or proprietor of the Augusta Friedman Beauty Salon. The names were in part identical, the salon was in the defendant's building, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Redwine v. Jackson, 8 Div. 425
-
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Crane
...in continuing to do business at the station. Standard Oil Company v. Gentry, supra, relies upon the case of Augusta Friedman's Shop, Inc. v. Yeates, 216 Ala. 434, 113 So. 299. In that case, the plaintiff was injured when she went into a beauty salon and an employee of the shop negligently b......
-
Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama v. Thornton
...created by estoppel and to apparent powers of agency, Standard Oil Co. v. Gentry, 241 Ala. 62, 1 So.2d 29; Augusta Friedman's Shop, Inc. v. Yeates, 216 Ala. 434, 113 So. 299. These latter aspects of agency are well 'An agent's authority is measured by the powers which his principal has caus......
-
Ragsdale v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
...is a principal may be estopped to deny agency. Standard Oil Co. v. Gentry, 241 Ala. 62, 1 So.2d 29 (1941); Augusta Friedman's Shop, Inc. v. Yeates, 216 Ala. 434, 113 So. 299 (1927). Several Alabama cases have been decided on the question of whether an employer is an agent of an insurer in a......