Davis v. Moore

• Decision Date: 19 April 1939
• Docket Number: 382.
• Citation: 2 S.E.2d 366,215 N.C. 449
• Parties: DAVIS v. MOORE et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

2 S.E.2d 366

215 N.C. 449

DAVIS v. MOORE et al.

No. 382.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 19, 1939

J F. Flowers, of Charlotte, and Hudson & Hudson, of Salisbury, for appellant.

Lewis & Lewis, of Statesville, Charlie Price, of Salisbury, and John R. McLaughlin, of Statesville, for appellees.

DEVIN Justice.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether judgment of nonsuit was properly entered at the close of plaintiff's evidence.

Plaintiff testified that he was arrested and placed in the Iredell County jail on the charge of assaulting his wife, and that he was inside a cell with the door partly open and talking to defendant Bailey, the jailer and deputy sheriff, when the injury complained of occurred. He described the circumstances as follows: "I had both hands extended, fingers up resting easily against the bars of the jail, in a natural position. When Mr. Bailey finished with his conversation he closed the door, but my right thumb at that moment had inadvertently slipped into the crack where the back of the metal door hinges, and as my thumb was caught I shoved my left leg and left hand out to the front where the door closes, next to Mr. Bailey, and said, 'Let up, Carl, you are cutting my hand off.' Instead of opening the door and looking inside to investigate, he threw his shoulder against the door, and then is when my thumb came off."

Plaintiff also testified that defendants Gilbert and Weber were deputy sheriffs of Iredell County. It was admitted that defendant Moore was the sheriff of Iredell County, and that the defendant National Surety Corporation was surety on the sheriff's official bond.

It is apparent that the evidence, considered in the light most favorable for the plaintiff, is sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury as to the defendant Bailey, and that as to him the motion for judgment of nonsuit was improperly allowed. C.S. § 4407. It is also apparent that there is no evidence upon which liability on the part of defendants Privette, Gilbert and Weber can be predicated, and that as to them the judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Two other questions remain for decision: (1) Is evidence of negligent injury inflicted on plaintiff by the jailer and deputy sheriff sufficient to impute liability to the defendant Moore, the sheriff of the County? (2) If there is evidence of liability on the part of the sheriff, is the surety on his official bond obligated therefor?

The liability of the sheriff for the acts of his deputy is governed by the law applicable to the relation of principal and agent. Hanie v. Rice, 194 N.C. 234, 139 S.E 380; Lanier v. Town of Greenville, 174 N.C. 311, 93 S.E. 850. It was said in State, to Use of Quin v Roane, 24 N.C. 144: "As a general principle, he (the sheriff) is, likewise, liable for the act or omission of his deputy, as for his own." Lyle v. Wilson, 26 N.C. 226. By statute the sheriff has the care and custody of the jail in his county and appoints the keeper. C.S. § 3944. In this case there was evidence tending to show that defendant Bailey, in closing the door of the cell wherein the plaintiff was incarcerated, negligently caused the injury to plaintiff's thumb. The act complained of was done by Bailey while acting within the scope of his authority and in the line of his duty as deputy sheriff in charge of the jail. In Jamesville & W. R. Co. v. Fisher, 109 N.C. 1, 13 S.E. 698, 699, 13 L.R.A. 721, this court said: "A sheriff is liable to answer in damages for any wrongful act of his deputy done under color of his office, for which the sheriff would have incurred such liability had he done the act himself, and in all such cases he and his deputy are, in contemplation of law, one person." To the same effect is the holding in Sutton v. Williams, 199 N.C. 546, 155 S.E. 160; Styers v. Forsyth County, 212 N.C. 558, 562, 194 S.E. 305; Somers v. Board of Commissioners, 123 N.C. 582, 31 S.E. 873, 68 Am.St.Rep. 834; Piland v. Taylor, 113 N.C. 1, 18 S.E. 70; State ex rel. Martin v. Long, 30 N.C. 415; 57 C. J. 797.

Under the evidence in this case, therefore, it must be held that testimony sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury as to defendant Bailey, the deputy sheriff in charge of the jail, would also carry the case to the jury as to defendant Moore, the sheriff, and that as to him also judgment of nonsuit was improperly entered.

However, it does not follow that evidence of liability on the part of the sheriff necessarily involves the surety on his bond. It was said in Sutton v. Williams, supra [199 N.C. 546, 155 S.E. 163], "An officer may be liable personally, although not liable on his bond." ...