Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Morris

• Decision Date: 20 December 1904
• Citation: 49 S.E. 606,121 Ga. 484
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. MORRIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

49 S.E. 606

121 Ga. 484

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

v.MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 20, 1904.

MASTER AND SERVANT—ASSAULT BY SERVANT.

1. A railroad company is not liable in damages for an assault and battery committed upon an intruder on its premises by an agent or employe who at the time was acting, not within the scope of his employment, but wholly outside of the general authority with which he had been clothed by the company.¶ 1. See Master and Servant, vol. 34, Cent. Dig 55 1217, 1219, 1221, 1225, 1231; Railroads, vol. 41 Cent Dig. §§ 902, 906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; W. M. Henry, Judge.

Action by T. C. Morris against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

J. Branham and McHenry & Maddox, for plaintiff in error.

Seaborn & Barry Wright, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J. The error assigned in the bill of exceptions sued out in this case is that the court below overruled a demurrer to the plaintiff's petition as amended at the trial. The allegations of fact upon which the plain-tin' sought to recover were substantially as follows: On October 5, 1902, plaintiff went onto the platform of defendant's freight depot, at the request and invitation of a policeman of the city of Rome, for the purpose of pointing out to the policeman a man in the company's employ whom the policeman de sired to arrest for a violation of an ordinance of that city. While standing on the platform, the plaintiff was approached by one J. C. O'Dell, "an employe of defendant in the capacity of trainmaster, " who said to him. "I told you not to come around here again, bothering my men, " or words of similar import; meaning that he had told plaintiff not to bother the employes of the defendant who were under his direction and control, and implying that plaintiff was at the time bothering an employe who was under his control and direction. After so addressing plaintiff, O'Dell violently assaulted him and threw him off the platform into the street, a distance of four feet, in the presence of many bystanders, and in a place fully exposed to view by the public, and O'Dell at the same time cursed and abused plaintiff. The said "J. C. O'Dell was an employe of defendant in capacity of trainmaster, as aforesaid, whose duty was to exercise a general supervision over all trainmen and operators, and to report all neglect of duty on the part of employes." The assault upon plaintiff was made because he had come there for the purpose of pointing out to the policeman an employe and trainman who was under the control of O'Dell, and "said O'Dell was acting in his capacity as trainmaster, as aforesaid, and not in his individual capacity." The plaintiff was greatly embarrassed and humiliated by the unlawful and violent battery committed upon him, and his feelings were thereby wounded, and he asks for $2,000 damages.

It is unnecessary to set forth the special grounds of the defendant's demurrer, for, in the view we take of the case, the general demurrer to the plaintiff's petition should have been sustained.

The plaintiff did not go upon the premises of the company at its invitation, express or implied, but upon the invitation of a policeman. There is no pretense that the plaintiff had any business to transact with the company. In this respect the case...