Crowder v. Wolary
Decision Date | 02 August 1940 |
Citation | 144 Fla. 149,198 So. 9 |
Parties | CROWDER v. WOLARY. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1940.
Error to Circuit Court, Brevard County; M. B. Smith, Judge.
Action by Marvin Crowder against Carl Wolary to recover for personal injuries. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
COUNSEL G. P. Garrett, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.
Russell Snow and Lloyd Campbell, both of Cocoa, for defendant in error.
This case is before the Court on writ of error to a final judgment on demurrer for the defendant entered by the lower court. The case turns on whether or not the amended declaration states a cause of action.
The amended declaration is, viz.:
'Amended Declaration.
'Marvin Crowder, plaintiff herein, sues Carl Wolary, defendant herein, by this his amended declaration, and says that:
It is contended that it was the legal duty of the defendant to furnish the plaintiff a safe place in which to work and to furnish him a competent fellow employee; and that plaintiff's vice-principal, Hardy Bonner, was not only incompetent but was a prankster and known to be such by the defendant and this fact alone rendered unsafe the place where plaintiff was required to work, and that these were nondelegable duties of the defendant. Some of the authorities cited to sustain this view are, viz: Ball v. I.C. Helmly Furn. Co., 132 Fla. 882, 182 So. 435; Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, Fla., 194 So. 353; Tampa Shipbuilding & Eng. Co. v. Thomas, 131 Fla. 650, 179 So. 705; Sutton Bros. v. Hancock, 105 Fla. 497, 141 So. 532; Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656; Stearns & Culver Lbr. Co. v. Fowler, 58 Fla. 362, 50 So. 680; Euting v. Chicago & N.W. R. R. Co., 116 Wis. 13, 92 N.W. 358, 60 L.R.A. 159, 96 Am.St.Rep. 936; Zabawa v. Oberbeck Bros. Mfg. Co., 146 Wis. 621, 131 N.W. 826, Ann.Cas.1912C, 419; Robinson v. Melville Mfg. Co., 165 N.C. 495, 81 S.E. 681, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 385. These cases and others cited in the brief of plaintiff in error have been carefully considered.
In the case of Zabawa v. Oberbeck Bros. Mfg. Co., supra., the court held that the question of whether or not the employee of the defendant was engaged in work within the scope of his employment at the time plaintiff was injured was for a jury to determine under appropriate instructions, while other courts hold that this question should be determined by the court as a matter of law.
The courts in recent years have decided cases involving injuries inflicted by means of compressed air devices used as a prank. These cases generally hold that the responsibility of the employer does not depend on the question of whether or not an inflicted injury was wilful and intentional or unintentional, but on the question of whether or not the employee when he did the wrong, thereby inflicting the injury, acted within the scope of his authority while prosecuting the employer's business or had stepped aside from that business and thereby committed an individual wrong. See Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co., 196 N.C. 614, 146 S.E. 597, 62 A.L.R. 1430, and annotations at page 1433; Ballard's Adm'x v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 128 Ky. 826, 110 S.W. 296, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 1052; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Currie, 100 Tex. 136, 96 S.W. 1073, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 367.
The demurrer admitted the truth of the allegation that the plaintiff was injured while working for the defendant at the filling station and received the injury while discharging duties within the scope of his employment. Likewise it is admitted that the plaintiff was injured by the defendant's employee, but it is illogical and unreasonable to assume that the employee injured the plaintiff while acting within the scope of his employment when he deliberately pushed the air hose in use at the filling station into the rectum of the plaintiff and turned on the air, thereby inflating the intestines and stomach of the plaintiff. There is no legal liability of a master for the acts of his servant as to matters beyond the scope of his employment.
Labatt on Master and Servant, Vol. 2 (1904) pages 1536-1541, par. 537, says:
'537. No Responsibility as to Matters Beyond the Scope of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Xl Ins. America, Inc. v. Ortiz
...among other things, that the offensive conduct was "activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master"); Crowder v. Wolary, 144 Fla. 149, 198 So. 9, 11 (1940) (The dispositive question is whether the offending employee "when he did the wrong ... acted within the scope of his autho......
- Douglass v. Tax Equities, Inc.
- Havana Greyhound Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Cuba Tours, Inc.