Exposition Cotton Mills v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 23 June 1915
• Docket Number: 402.
• Citation: Exposition Cotton Mills v. Sanders, 143 Ga. 593, 85 S.E. 747 (Ga. 1915)
• Parties: EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS v. SANDERS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

85 S.E. 747

143 Ga. 593

EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS v. SANDERS.

No. 402.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 23, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a manufacturing corporation employs a watchman, and prescribes amongst his duties, that he shall look after the property of the employer and police the premises and ten ant houses in which the employés live, and keep order on said premises, and arrest persons violating the law or injuring any property of the employer or creating any disorder about the mill, the servant necessarily must be the judge of acts which will amount to acts of disorder; and, if the servant arrest and in pursuance of his duties as servant, beats an intoxicated person sitting on the steps of one of the employer's tenant houses, but not creating a disturbance, the master is liable for the servant's tort.This is true although the servant may also be a special policeman.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Action by D. M. Sanders against the Exposition Cotton Mills.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

D. N Sanders brought suit against the Exposition Cotton Mills to recover damages on account of an alleged unlawful assault upon him by a servant of the defendant, acting within the scope of his duties.The petition alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff was working for the defendant at its factory and was boarding with a Mr. Queenat 109 Main street, near the mills.The house occupied by Queen belonged to the defendant, and Queen was its tenant.On the afternoon of the day named in the petition the plaintiff"had been to town and had taken several drinks, and was to some extent intoxicated."After returning home he sat on the steps of his boarding house, and "was not creating any disturbance, and was not in any wise molesting any one," when one Lawson came to him, took hold of him, and told him he was going to place him under arrest.Plaintiff inquired the cause of his arrest, when Lawson jerked him off the doorsteps and began beating him over the head with a heavy club.Lawson then took him "up the street for the purpose of calling a police patrol, and while waiting he again assaulted petitioner, beating petitioner over the head with said heavy club."It was alleged that:

"Lawson was employed by said defendant as gatekeeper and watchman.It was a part of the duties of said Lawson, under the employment of said defendant, to look after the property of defendant and to police the premises and tenant-houses in which defendant's employés lived, and to keep order on said premises, and to arrest persons violating the law or injuring the property of defendant or creating any disorder about the mill property.Said Lawson acted as a policeman about the mill and mill property, and this was done as a part of the duties of the employment by the defendant."

It was further alleged that Lawson was acting within the scope of his employment by the defendant in his efforts to arrest the plaintiff.The court overruled a general demurrer, and exception...