Condict v. Condict, 5812
Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 5812,5812 |
Citation | 664 P.2d 131 |
Parties | Wynn G. CONDICT, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Alden CONDICT, Appellee (Defendant). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John E. Stanfield and John B. Scott of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, for appellant.
William F. Downes of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Massey & Sullivan and Michael Golden of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellee.
Sharon A. Fitzgerald and Sylvia Lee Hackl, Cheyenne, for amicus curiae Committee of the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Before ROONEY, C.J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROSE and BROWN, JJ.
This appeal comes from the granting of appellee's motion for a directed verdict. The lawsuit between appellant-plaintiff Wynn Condict and appellee-defendant Alden Condict was tried on theories of negligence, intentional tort, and respondeat superior. At the close of plaintiff's case, the judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the appellee on the ground that appellant Wynn Condict had failed to prove that Alden Condict's employee, Jenkins, was within the "scope of his employment" at the time of the alleged tortious conduct. Appellant presents these issues for review:
1. Did the trial court err in granting appellee's motion for directed verdict?
2. In excluding certain evidence, did the trial court fail to properly apply our decision in Campen v. Stone, Wyo., 635 P.2d 1121 (1981)?
We will reverse and remand for a new trial.
Appellant Wynn Condict is the nephew of appellee Alden Condict who, with his brother, Winthrop Condict, operates a ranch in Carbon County, Wyoming.
In 1978, disagreements between Alden and Winthrop caused them to divide their operations in a way which resulted in each brother employing and paying the wages of his own workers, while the two factions continued to ranch the jointly held property. The discord between the brothers, their families and employees resulted in various assaultive conflicts but, in view of the posture of this appeal, it will not be necessary to set out the details of these prior incidents.
Appellant's claim arises from an incident in which he was involved with Ted Jenkins, an employee of Alden Condict. There is an area on the Condict ranch where gas pumps are located close to a bridge, and, because of its weakened condition, this bridge had been designated for use by lighter-weight vehicles only. On the morning in question, Wynn Condict was at the gas pumps assigning his father's employees their various tasks for the day. At the same time, Ted Jenkins and another employee of Alden Condict were gassing two vehicles, one of which was a heavy army-surplus six-by-six truck utilized in haying operations. An altercation occurred between Jenkins and Wynn Condict when Jenkins made known his intent to drive the large army truck over the bridge, it being Wynn Condict's position that this was one of the heavy vehicles for which the bridge was not to be used. Wynn Condict became alarmed because his new pickup truck was blocking the bridge and he proceeded to back his pickup across the bridge. In the meantime, Jenkins had commandeered the army-surplus vehicle, crashed it through a gate and headed toward Wynn's vehicle. Somewhere near the end of the bridge or just off the other side, Jenkins rammed the pickup with the six-by-six truck.
As a result of this impact, appellant claims that he suffered severe injury to his back, which resulted in his bringing a personal-injury action against Jenkins and Alden Condict, as Jenkins' employer, in which he sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Jenkins was never served, and thus the trial, which culminated in a directed verdict, was had with Alden Condict as the only defendant.
In directing a verdict for Alden Condict, the trial judge held that plaintiff had failed to prove that Jenkins was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. In reaching this decision, the judge commented:
(Emphasis added.)
Appellant argues that, by holding that the evidence must show that Alden Condict specifically authorized Ted Jenkins to commit the alleged tortious act, the trial judge erroneously applied the rules announced by this court in Sage Club v. Hunt, Wyo., 638 P.2d 161 (1981). He also urges that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to make out a prima facie case under that decision. We agree with the appellant's contentions.
In Combined Insurance Company of America v. Sinclair, Wyo., 584 P.2d 1034, 1041 (1978), we discussed the rules governing those situations in which an employee can be thought about as acting within the scope of his or her employment:
In Combined Insurance Company of America we were concerned with a claim that the servant had negligently injured a third party while acting for the master. Not until our decision in Sage Club v. Hunt, supra, did we decide whether or not similar rules were applicable when an employee intentionally injures another. In Sage Club, we held that these rules were applicable where an intentional tort was in issue:
Stated succinctly, in Sage Club v. Hunt, supra, we embraced a rule of law which holds an employer liable for the intentional torts of his employee committed while the employee is acting, at least in part, in furtherance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co.
...S.E.2d 897, 908 (1991); Bittner by Bittner v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 181 Wis.2d 93, 511 N.W.2d 325, 330 (Ct.App.1993); Condict v. Condict, 664 P.2d 131, 136 n. 3 (Wyo.1983). 35 The following states mandate only a "showing" of actual damages: First Bank of Boaz v. Fielder, 590 So.2d 893, 899 (......
-
Bierman v. Aramark Refreshment Services
...v. Lubow, 202 N.J.Super. 58, 493 A.2d 1288, 1301 (Ct.App.Div. 1985); Briner v. Hyslop, 337 N.W.2d 858, 867 (Iowa 1983); Condict v. Condict, 664 P.2d 131, 136 (Wyo. 1983); Purvis v. Prattco, Inc., 595 S.W.2d 103, 104 26. Schropp v. Crown Eurocars, Inc., 654 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla.1995). 27. S......
-
Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ksi Services, Inc.
...N.W.2d 140 (1983) (same); Taylor v. Doctors Hospital (West), 21 Ohio App.3d 154, 156-57, 486 N.E.2d 1249 (1985) (same); Condict v. Condict, 664 P.2d 131, 135 (Wyo.1983) 8. See, e.g., Martinez v. Hagopian, 182 Cal. App.3d 1223, 1227-28, 227 Cal.Rptr. 763 (1986) (embracing totality of circums......
-
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Shirley
...or a managerial agent of the principal ratified or approved the act." This rule was maintained and reaffirmed in Condict v. Condict, 664 P.2d 131, 136 (Wyo.1983). While Farmers may have waived such error by not tendering an instruction incorporating the requirements of Campen, given our pol......