Birmingham News Co. v. Browne

• Decision Date: 29 March 1934
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 520.
• Citation: 228 Ala. 395,153 So. 773
• Parties: BIRMINGHAM NEWS CO. v. BROWNE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

153 So. 773

228 Ala. 395

BIRMINGHAM NEWS CO. v. BROWNE.

6 Div. 520.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 29, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans Judge.

Action for false imprisonment by Bert Browne against the Birmingham News Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326.

Reversed and remanded.

R. B Evins, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Perry &amp Powell, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON Chief Justice.

It seems well settled, in this and other states, that, when a false arrest and imprisonment is made by one who purports to be the agent of another who did not take part in the arrest of the plaintiff, but who is alleged to have been the principal for whom the tort-feasor acted, the question of the liability of such an alleged principal is to be determined by the rules relating to principal and agent rather than any peculiar to the law of false imprisonment. By such general rules of agency, a principal is answerable for the fraud, negligence, or other wrongful acts of his agent committed in the course of his employment, and this is so though the particular act was not authorized by the principal and even when it was forbidden by him. 11 R. C. L. p. 810, § 23, and many cases cited in note 16. It is also well settled in cases of false arrest and imprisonment that a defendant would be liable for the act of his agent done, or caused to be done, within the scope and range of his employment, and in the accomplishment of objects within the line of his duties, though the said agent may have sought to accomplish the business of the defendant by improper or unlawful means or in a way not authorized by the defendant and unknown to him or even contrary to his express directions. Hardeman v. Williams, 169 Ala. 57, 53 So. 794; Gilliam v. South & North Alabama Railroad Co., 70 Ala. 268; Robinson & Co. et al. v. Greene, 148 Ala. 434, 43 So. 797. But for the willful torts of a servant or agent, however, committed not to protect his master's interest, but to gratify some spite or personal object of the servant, or for his acts done in the supposed public interest, and not for the benefit of the master, the master is not liable, thought the tort-feasor may have been in his employ at the time. 11 R. C. L. p. 811, § 23; 39 C.J. p. 1293, § 1488; Johnson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 166 Ala. 534, 52 So. 312. As said by the court in Wallace v. John A. Casey Co., 132 A.D. 35, 116 N.Y.S. 394, 395: "In case of alleged willful or reckless acts, the test of the master's liability is whether the act was done within the general scope of the employment or with a view to the furtherance of the master's business, or whether the servant did it to effect some other purpose without having the master's interest or service in mind."

We may concede that there was evidence sufficient to carry the question to the jury as to Knight's participation in the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff, although the weight of the evidence may have been against his presence at the time of the arrest. But, from...