Gulf Refining Co. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 18 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14074. |
| Citation | 117 S.E. 274,30 Ga.App. 240 |
| Parties | GULF REFINING CO. ET AL. v. HARRIS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The general rule is that a master is liable for the torts of his servant, done within the performance of the duties of his employment. The theory of liability under the doctrine of "respondeat superior" is founded upon the legal principle expressed by the maxim, "qui facit per alium facit per se," which presupposes, however, that the master retains authority and control over the manner, means and method by which the work is to be performed. But no such liability exists (for the reason that the relationship of master and servant does not exist) where the employer merely engages another to do a particular work, but retains no right or power to direct or control the manner, means, or method by which the result is to be accomplished, except as provided by section 4415 of the Code (1910), or unless the person sought to be charged is estopped from denying the existence of such relationship, by reason of his conduct in misleading the complainant to deal with the tort-feasor in such capacity and to his injury. In order for the principle of estoppel to thus apply, the party seeking damages must not only have been misled, but by reason of being so misled must have acted to his injury. This is true, even where the action is based upon a breach of contract, since "it is of the essence of such an estoppel that the person claiming to have been misled should have acted upon the belief." Bank of the University v. Tuck, 101 Ga. 104, 112, 28 S.E. 168, 171; Lynch v. Poole, 138 Ga. 303, 305, 75 S.E. 158. The instant case is controlled by the ruling made in Phipps v. Gulf Refining Co., 25 Ga.App. 384, 103 S.E. 472 where the nature of the action was the same and the facts were similar. No additional facts are disclosed, such as could take this case without that ruling, since there is nothing to indicate that the injury was in any wise induced by any misleading conduct of the defendant acted upon by the plaintiff. Applying to the undisputed evidence the rules of law above set forth, a verdict for the defendant was demanded.
Error from City Court of Hall County; W. B. Sloan, Judge.
Action by Annie Harris against the Gulf Refining Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants brings error. Reversed.
Luther Roberts and Hammond Johnson, both of Gainesville,...
To continue reading
Request your trial