Buchanan v. Western Union Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10513. |
| Citation | 106 S.E. 159,115 S.C. 433 |
| Parties | BUCHANAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenwood County; George E. Prince, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Lula Buchanan against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Tillman & Mays, of Greenwood, and J. Wm. Thurmond, of Edgefield, for appellant.
John Gary Evans, of Spartanburg, and Grier, Park & Nicholson, of Greenwood, for respondent.
This is an action for damages. The plaintiff lived, at the time set up in the complaint, in Greenwood, in this state. The plaintiff's husband was working in Columbia, and sent to his wife, through the defendant company, $11.50. The agent of the defendant sent a check for the money to the plaintiff by one of its regular messengers. The messenger found the plaintiff at home alone. While the plaintiff was in the act of signing the receipt the messenger is alleged to have made an indecent proposal to her. There is also evidence that the plaintiff offered to strike the messenger, but the messenger at first advanced towards the plaintiff, and then seized the receipt and ran away. The question is the liability of the defendant for the conduct of its messenger.
At the close of the testimony, the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict in its favor. The presiding judge directed the verdict for the defendant, but said, "I am rather disposed to think that it is a step that the law ought to take, but it hasn't taken yet." The majority of this court think that the principle has been settled.
We are unable to differentiate this case, in principle, from the case of Jones v. Railroad Company, 108 S.C. 217, 94 S.E. 490. The fact that the defendant undertook to transact its business in the home of the plaintiff, instead of in its own office, makes no difference. Certainly none in favor of the defendant. It is more in keeping with the spirit of the law to protect the homes of the people than railway express, and telegraph offices. A consignee may send another to get his freight as Jones did. The communication of the telegraph company is with the person to whom the message is sent. The appearance of their messenger to most people is startling. It indicated an urgent necessity for immediate action; otherwise, the mail will do. The appearance of their messenger throws caution to the winds and opens almost every door. May it admit, with impunity, a thief, a murderer, a rapist? It seems to us that it is going to the extreme limit to say that if the messenger is sent to the house of A., and he turns aside and enters the house of B., then the telegraph company is not responsible, because the transaction with B was not within the scope of his employment. The transaction with A. is certainly within the scope of his employment, or there is no ground for responsibility for any delict. The servant in Jones' Case was writing a card to his wife which was purely private matter. The interruption of that private matter caused the difficulty. It was not within a scope of the servant's employment to write to his wife or to abuse and threaten those who came for their freight, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matheson v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...to the Rankin Case, and was, as has been shown, decided upon an entirely different principle of law. In the case of Buchanan v. Western Union Telegraph Company, supra, plaintiff sued the telegraph company, alleging that messenger boy of the company, who came to her home on business for the ......
- Oxweld Acetylene Co. v. Davis