Barnett v. Inland Motor Freight, 32659
| Decision Date | 22 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 32659,32659 |
| Citation | 269 P.2d 592,44 Wn.2d 619 |
| Parties | BARNETT et ux. v. INLAND MOTOR FREIGHT. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
John D. MacGillivray, Willard W. Jones, Spokane, for appellant.
Cashatt & Williams, Karl V. Herrmann, Spokane, for respondents.
The respondents brought this action to recover damages arising out of injuries sustained by them when the automobile in which they were riding came in contact with one being driven by Walter R. Steele. The automobile driven by Steele was the property of appellant and Steele was one of its employees in the capacity of a solicitor or salesman of motor freight transportation. The jury found that Steele was negligent in the operation of the automobile and that at the time of the collision he was acting in the course and scope of his employment. A verdict against appellant was returned.
No motion was made by appellant for a nonsuit at the close of respondents' case, but at the close of all of the evidence appellant moved for a directed verdict. After the verdict was returned appellant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury or in the alternative for a new trial. The motions were denied, judgment was entered on the verdict and this appeal followed.
The assignments of error challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence to establish that at the time of the collision Steele was acting within the course or scope of his employment as a salesman or solicitor of freight.
At the close of respondents' case in chief the evidence showed that the automobile being driven by Steele at the time of the collision was the property of appellant and that Steele was on its payroll as an employee whose primary duty was to solicit freight for transportation. Such facts were sufficient to take the case to the jury. Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d 28, 123 P.2d 780; McGinn v. Kimmel, 36 Wash.2d 786, 221 P.2d 467.
The appellant assumed its duty of going forward evidence to meet the case made by respondents, and from such evidence direct and circumstantial together with reasonable inferences property to be drawn therefrom the jury was justified in finding as follows:
Appellant was engaged in the business of transporting freight and employed solicitors to make contacts with shippers. Steele was assigned the business direct of Spokane. The method of solicitation used by Steele with the knowledge and consent of appellant was not only to call upon customers and prospective customers, but to make contacts and gain friendships and goodwill in a social way. The social activities included taking customers to dinners and luncheons, furnishing cigarettes, cigars, drinks, etc., also tickets for football, basketball, and hockey games. Customers and prospective customers were taken on hunting and fishing trips....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foote v. Grant, 34733
...we held the trial court properly directed a verdict for the employer; and in each of the following cases--Barnett v. Inland Motor Freight, 1954, 44 Wash.2d 619, 269 P.2d 592; Roletto v. Department Stores Garage Co., 1948, 30 Wash.2d 439, 191 P.2d 875; Mitchell v. Nalley's, Inc., 1931, 163 W......
-
Hein v. Chrysler Corp.
...P. 36; Westerland v. Argonaut Grill, 185 Wash. 411, 55 P.2d 819; Langness v. Ketonen, 42 Wash.2d 394, 255 P.2d 551; Barnett v. Inland Motor Freight, Wash., 269 P.2d 592. We outlined the basis on which the responsibility of the employer for the misconduct of his employee rests in Westerland ......
-
Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown
...also McCauley v. Steward, 63 Ariz. 524, 164 P.2d 465; Gibbons & Reed Co. v. Howard, 129 Colo. 262, 269 P.2d 701; Barnett v. Inland Motor Freight, 44 Wash.2d 619, 269 P.2d 592. It was necessary further to show that Baker's mission for recovery of his own saddle, in some fashion or other, ser......
- Pate v. General Electric Co., 32314