Candace, Inc. v. Newton
| Decision Date | 11 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 35327,No. 1,35327,1 |
| Citation | 91 Ga.App. 357,85 S.E.2d 616 |
| Parties | CANDACE, Inc. v. G. L. NEWTON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The allegations of the petition were sufficient to show the defendant's liability for the wrongful act of its servant, and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer thereto.
George Lee Newton brought suit against Candace, Inc., for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained under the following circumstances: The defendant owns and operates the Briarcliff Hotel in Atlanta. On March 22, 1952, at approximately five o'clock in the morning, the plaintiff, who was then a registered guest at said hotel, approached the desk in the lobby of said hotel, and the defendant's agent, the night clerk, 'then and there furiously, suddenly, with malice, and without any provocation whatsoever, commenced to strike your petitioner a great number of violent blows upon his head and divers other parts of his body with a blunt instrument.' Said night clerk was employed by the defendant at said time and place, and was working within the scope of his employment in the defendant's business, with the defendant's knowledge and consent. The assault and battery by the defendant's night clerk rendered the plaintiff unconscious, he suffered a cut in his scalp, his teeth were knocked loose and badly chipped, and he was taken to a hospital for treatment. As a direct result of the assault and battery by the defendant's agent, the plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, dizzy spells, and double vision.
The defendant filed a general demurrer to the foregoing allegations of the petition, the demurrer was overruled, and the case is before this court upon exceptions to that ruling.
John L. Westmoreland, John L. Westmoreland, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Martin H. Peabody, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Code, § 105-108 holds every person liable for torts committed by his servant, 'by his command or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business, whether the same shall be by negligence or voluntary.'
The allegations of agency in the instant case clearly fall within the rule laid down in Conney v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 81 Ga.App. 324(3), 58 S.E.2d 559. As will be seen from the foregoing statement of facts, the plaintiff alleged by 'a simple direct statement the fact that the wrongful act was the act of the defendant's servant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A-1 Bonding Service, Inc. v. Hunter
...v. Whiting, 48 Ga.App. 154 (4), 172 S.E. 111; American Security Co. v. Cook, 49 Ga.App. 723(2), 176 S.E. 798; Candace, Inc. v. Newton, 91 Ga.App. 357, 358, 85 S.E.2d 616. The court charged the jury on this subject: 'I further instruct you the act of a servant may be within the scope of his ......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 39915
...Co. v. Whiting, 48 Ga.App. 154(2), 172 S.E. 111; American Security Co. v. Cook, 49 Ga.App. 723(2), 176 S.E. 798; Candace, Inc. v. Newton, 91 Ga.App. 357, 85 S.E.2d 616; Delta Finance Co. v. Ganakas, 93 Ga.App. 297, 91 S.E.2d 383. The cases cited by Ford are all distinguishable in that eithe......