Goodman v. Wilson

Decision Date07 May 1914
Citation166 S.W. 752,129 Tenn. 464
PartiesGOODMAN ET AL. v. WILSON.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; Walter Malone, Judge.

Action by Charles S. Wilson against Walter Goodman and Mrs. Corinne A. Richardson. From a judgment for plaintiff against both defendants, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, Mrs Richardson appeals. Affirmed.

D. W De Haven, of Memphis, for appellant.

George Harsh, of Memphis, for appellee.

Steen & Klewer, of Memphis, for defendant Goodman.

LANSDEN J.

This suit was brought by Wilson against Goodman and his sister Mrs. Corinne A. Richardson, to recover damages resulting from a collision with a buggy in which Wilson was riding and an automobile owned by Goodman and Mrs. Richardson. From the verdict and judgment in the circuit court against both defendants, an appeal was taken to, and the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed by, the Court of Civil Appeals. The case is presented to us upon the petition of Mrs Richardson alone. The facts which we consider material are that the automobile which collided with defendant in error is owned jointly and equally by Mrs. Richardson and Mr. Goodman, who are brother and sister. They live in the same residence, and jointly employ one chauffeur, and each pays one-half of his wages, and he serves them both in the operation of the automobile. They equally bear the expense of operation and repair of the automobile, and each of them, separately or jointly, may use it accordingly as their needs or pleasures may require. They have an agreement by which Mr. Goodman has a right of preference to the use of the automobile in being carried to and from his office in the morning and afternoon, if he sees proper to require the use of the car at this time, to the exclusion of the right of Mrs. Richardson to use it at these hours. When either party desires to use the automobile, orders would be given by the one so desiring to use it to the chauffeur for this purpose. Occasionally they used it jointly, and occasionally Mrs. Richardson would ride into town after her brother, or would ride to town with him in the morning when he would go to his office.

On the occasion of the accident, the automobile was going into town to the office of Mr. Goodman, and was going west on Union avenue. Wilson was driving west on Union avenue in an open buggy with a horse attached. The automobile approached him from behind. It was racing with another automobile moving in the same direction, and was running at a rate of speed estimated by the witness for plaintiff at from 25 to 40 miles an hour. When Wilson saw the two automobiles approaching him, he drew his horse and buggy close to the curb, and, as he did so, the automobile in front of that of plaintiff in error passed Wilson, and plaintiff in error's automobile appeared to be trying to get in between the other automobile and Wilson's buggy. In this attempt, the automobile struck the wheel of the buggy, and knocked Wilson into the air, and he fell onto the asphalt pavement. The automobile ran 90 yards after striking the buggy, before it was stopped.

Upon these facts, it is insisted for Mrs. Richardson that she is not liable, because the evidence does not connect her with the accident, and that the chauffeur, at the time of the accident, was in the service of Mr. Goodman only, and therefore the rule of respondeat superior does not apply as between the chauffeur and Mrs.

Richardson.

The Court of Civil Appeals was of opinion that, although Mrs. Richardson was not in the automobile at the time, and may not have given orders to the chauffeur to proceed on the journey, still the chauffeur and the automobile at the time of the accident were on the business of the joint owners of the automobile.

It is undoubtedly true, as a general proposition of law, that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged with the injury resulting from the wrong at the time and in respect of the very transaction out of which the injury arose, and the mere fact that the driver of the automobile was the defendants' servant will not make the defendant liable. It must be further shown that at the time of the accident the driver was on the master's business, and acting within the scope of his employment. This rule was said by Blackstone to be founded on the superintendence and control which the master is supposed to exercise over his servant. 1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Garis v. Eberling
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1934
    ... ... 2 R. C. L. p. 1190, ... par. 24; Leach v. Asman, 130 Tenn. 510, 513, 172 ... S.W. 303; Taylor v. Arnold, 2 Tenn.App. 246, 251; ... Goodman v. Wilson, 129 Tenn. 464, 166 S.W. 752, 51 ... L. R. A. (N. S.) 1116 ...          And the ... theory that an automobile is an ... ...
  • Messer v. Reid
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1948
    ... ...          Rehearing ... Denied Feb. 28, 1948 ...          Error ... to Circuit Court, Shelby County; John W. Wilson, Judge ...          Two ... actions by Purvis M. Masser against Mrs Wallace Reid and ... another, respectively for personal injuries to ... not liable. Raines v. Mercer, 165 Tenn. 415, 418, 5 ... S.W.2d 263; King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217, 204 S.W ... 296, L.R.A.1918F 293; Goodman v. Wilson, 129 Tenn ... 464, 166 S.W. 752, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1116; Keller v ... Federal Bob Brannon Truck Co., 151 Tenn. 427, 269 S.W ... ...
  • Hotel Equipment Co. v. Liddell
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 13, 1924
    ... ... the other from liability for his acts." ...          In the ... Tennessee case of Goodman v. Wilson, 129 Tenn. 464 ... (1), 166 S.W. 752, 51 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1116, it was held: ... "Where a brother and sister jointly own an automobile, ... ...
  • Delaney v. Turner
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 1948
    ... ...         Schoolfield & Graham, Chattanooga, for defendant in error ...         GOODMAN, ...         The parties ... will be referred to in their respective capacities in the ... Court below ...         This suit ... Carolina Motor Transportation Company v. Brooks, 173 ... Tenn. 542, 121 S.W.2d 559; Goodman v. Wilson, 129 ... Tenn. 464, 166 S.W. 752, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1116; Trimble v ... Bridges, 1943, 27 Tenn.App. 320, 180 S.W.2d 590; 35 ... Am.Jur. 1031, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT