Champion v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 02 December 1926 |
| Parties | CHARLES CHAMPION v. WILLIAM J. SHAW. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
September 21, 1926.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, CROSBY PIERCE, CARROLL, WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Agency, Scope of employment.
At the trial of an action of tort for damage to an automobile, it appeared that the damage was caused in a collision with an automobile of a third person, driven by one who was the manager of an automobile service station owned by the defendant, whose business was selling a certain make of automobile and conducting a service station for them; that one, who owned a truck of a different make from that in which the defendant dealt, interviewed the manager and, in substance, told him that he would buy one of the defendant's cars if the manager would sell his truck for him; that the manager, in a car of a third person, drove to the house of the prospective customer with one who was a prospective buyer of the customer's truck, and on the return trip negligently caused the collision. There was evidence that the manager was acting outside instructions given by the defendant and that on the day in question there were three or four of the defendant's cars that the manager might have used instead of the car of the third person.
Held, that (1) An inference was warranted that the manager at the time of the collision was acting within the scope of his employment;
(2) The fact that the car of the third person was being used was not controlling;
(3) Although the means used by the manager might have been found not to have been intended or contemplated by the defendant, the manager might have been found to have been acting for the defendant and within the scope of his employment, and, if so found, the mere fact that such means were used did not prevent the plaintiff's recovery.
TORT for damage to the plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision with an automobile alleged to have been driven negligently by an employee of the defendant. Writ in the Fourth District Court of Berkshire, dated May 8, 1924.
Material evidence in the District Court is described in the opinion. The defendant asked the judge to rule "that the plaintiff has not shown that Halterman was acting for the defendant at the time of the accident and on the evidence can not recover." The judge refused so to rule and found for the plaintiff in the sum of $150 and reported the action to the Appellate Division for the Western District, who entered an order that the judge erred in refusing the ruling above quoted, and that judgment be entered for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
The case was argued at the bar in September, 1926, before Rugg, C.J., Crosby Carroll, Wait, & Sanderson, JJ., and afterwards was submitted on briefs to all the Justices.
W.J. Donovan, for the plaintiff. M.E. Couch, for the defendant.
The plaintiff's automobile, was damaged while operated by him, by reason of a collision with an automobile owned by one Roberts and driven by Paul Halterman, the defendant's agent. At the trial in the Fourth District Court of Berkshire there was evidence of the plaintiff's care and the negligence of Halterman. The defendant's business at the time of the accident, was that of
"selling Studebaker automobiles and conducting a service station for Studebaker automobiles" at North Adams, called the "Shaw Motor Sales Company." Halterman was the manager of this station. Frank Kelly desired to sell or exchange his Ford truck. He had visited the service station "looking over used cars there," and intended to buy a car of the Shaw Motor Sales Company if Halterman sold his (Kelly's) truck. "I told him [Halterman] I would buy one if he would unload my Ford truck." Halterman "was doing it to show larger sales for his business." On Saturday, when the plaintiff's car was run into, Halterman came, during business hours, to Kelly's residence in Adams. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fanciullo v. B.G.&S. Theatre Corp.
...Singer Manuf. Co., 190 Mass. 489, 77 N.E. 480,6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 567;Zerngis v. H. P. Hood & Sons, 255 Mass. 603, 152 N.E. 50;Champion v. Shaw, 258 Mass. 9, 154 N.E. 181;Howe v. Newmarch, 12 Allen, 49;Armstrong v. Stair, 217 Mass. 534, 105 N.E. 442;Holmes v. Wakefield, 12 Allen, 580, 90 Am.Dec.......
-
Hayes v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...Mass. 268, 135 N.E. 142;McDonough v. Vozzela, 247 Mass. 552, 142 N.E. 831;Walsh v. Feinstein, 251 Mass. 109, 146 N.E. 355;Champion v. Shaw, 258 Mass. 9, 154 N.E. 181;Cardoza v. Isherwood, 258 Mass. 165, 154 N.E. 859; Am. Law Inst. Restatement: Agency, s. 229. At the time of the accident the......
-
Frenyea v. Maine Steel Prods. Co.
...directed to render. This could properly be found to be within the scope of his employment. If so, his master is liable. Champion v. Shaw, 258 Mass. 9, 154 N. E. 181; 39 C. J. §. 1478 and It is the opinion of the court that the jury committed no error in reaching the conclusion that Fred A. ......
-
Wescott v. Young
...case before us Young was hired to sell an automobile and could use his own method of operating his own motor vehicle. In Champion v. Shaw, 258 Mass. 9, 154 N. E. 181, the manager of the defendant was operating a particular automobile while showing it to a customer. Oulighan v. Butler, 189 M......