Henry v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1933
• Docket Number: 30455
• Parties: HENRY v. MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

146 So. 857

166 Miss. 827

HENRY v. MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO

No. 30455

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 27, 1933

Division B

Suggestion Of Error Overruled May 8, 1933.

APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county HON. WM. A. ALCORN Judge.

Action by John W. Henry, administrator, against the Mississippi Power & Light Company. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Reversed and remanded.

Maynard, FitzGerald & Venable, of Clarksdale, for appellant.

In this particular case appellee power company had placed its employee, West, in full custody, control and charge of the dangerous instrumentality, and the guarding of this instrumentality being a nondelegable duty, the said appellee is as fully liable for any acts of negligence on the part of its servant West as if it had fully authorized him to perform the acts which lead to the death of William Henry.

Where it is doubtful whether a servant in injuring a third person was acting within the scope of his authority, it has been said that the doubt will be resolved against the master because he set the servant in motion.

39 C. J., section 1472; Robards v. Bannon Sewer Pipe Co., 130 Ky. 380, 113 S.W. 429; South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Cleveland (Ky.), 100 S.W. 283; Thompson on Negligence, sections 563 and 564; 18 R. C. L., Master & Servant, section 254; St. Louis R. Co. v. Hendricks, 48 Ark. 177, 2 S.W. 783; Barmore v. Vicksburg R. Co., 85 Miss. 426, 38 So. 210; Sharp v. Erie R. Co., 184 N.Y. 100, 76 N.E. 923; Moon v. Matthews, 227 P. St. 488, 76 A. 219.

Where a servant has been placed in exclusive control or management of his master's premises, he has implied authority to invite or permit children to be on the master's premises.

39 C. J., section 1499.

The master is responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of his servants in the course of their employment, though unauthorized or even forbidden by him, and although outside of their line of duty, and without regard to their motives.

Barmore v. Vicksburg R. Co., 85 Miss. 426; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson (Fla.), 86 So. 629.

The owner of a dangerous machine placed by him in the custody or control of an employee is liable for all damages resulting to others through its use by such employee whether the immediate object of such use is to benefit employer or employee.

Bobo Rad v. Dix, 162 N.Y.S. 992; Stone v. Sinclair Refining Co., 225 Mich. 344, 196 N.W. 339; 39 C. J., Master & Servants, section 483; 18 R. C. L., Master & Servant, section 249; Black v. Rock Island (La.), 51 So. 82; Wharton on Negligence, section 160; Alsever v. M. & St. Louis R. Co. (Iowa), 56 L.R.A. 748.

The duty of those using dangerous instruments to observe the greatest care cannot be shifted to a servant in custody of them. That negligent acts of the servant in their custody becomes the act of master.

Pittsburgh Cinn. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Shields, 8 L.R.A. 464; Harriman v. Pitts. & St. L. R. Co., 45 Ohio State 11; Clowdis v. Fresno Irrig. Co., 118 Cal. 315, 50 P. 373; Cameron v. Henyon Connell Commercial Co., 22 Mont. 312, 44 L.R.A. 508, 74 Am. St. Rep. 602, 56 P. 358; Carter v. Towne, 98 Mass. 567, 96 Am. Dec. 682; Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397.

An invitee is one who is expressly or impliedly invited on premises.

45 C. J., Negligence, section 219.

The duty not to injure an invitee extends to the negligence of not warning invitee of danger which is known or ought to be known to the owner or occupant of premises on which said danger is situated.

So. R. R. Co. v. Bates, 194 Ala. 78, 69 So. 131; Farmers v. Perry, 118 So. 406, 218 Ala. 223; Wilbourn v. Charleston Cooperage Co., 127 Miss. 290, 90 So. 9; Fleichman Malting Co. v. Mrkacek, 14 F.2d 602; 45 C. J., Negligence, 237; Allen v. R. R. Co., 111 Miss. 267, 71 So. 386; 45 C. J., Negligence, section 248.

Failure to warn a child of danger constitutes negligence where the child is especially invited to enter into a dangerous situation.

45 C. J., Negligence, sections 305 and 307; 45 C. J., Negligence, section 221; Chalmers v. Kolb, 9 F.2d 924.

A person is a licensee where his entry or use of the premises is permitted by the owner or person in control thereof.

45 C. J., Negligence, 194.

The duty toward a licensee is not only to refrain from wilfully or wantonly injuring him, but also for enticing him into a dangerous place.

Parks v. N. Y. Tel. Co., 198 N.Y.S. 698, 201 N.Y.S. 930; Consolidated Lead & Zinc Co. v. Carcoran (C. C. A. Okla.), 37 F.2d 296; Ratliff v. Mexico Power Co., 203 S.W. 232; Herren v. Pender, 11 Q. B. Div. 503; Lepnick v. Gaddis, 72 Miss. 200; 20 R. C. L., Negligence, section 52; 45 C. J., Negligence, sections 207 and 208; Davidson v. Ottertail Power Co., 150 Minn. 446, 185 N.W. 644; Union News Co. v. Freeborn, 111 Ohio St. 105, 144 N.E. 595; Dublin Cotton Oil Co. v. Jarrard (Tex.), 40 S.W. 531, 42 S.W. 95; Barrett v. So. Pac. Co., 91 Cal. 296; Kimber v. Gas Ltd., 1 K. B. 439; Erickson v. Minn. St. Paul R. R. Co. (Minn.), 205 N.W. 889; Gunderson v. N.W. Elevator Co., 49 N.W. 694; Depue v. Flatau, 111 N.W. 1; 45 C. J., Negligence, section 307; 45 C. J., section 207; Shawnee v. Cheek (Okla.), 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 672.

It may be stated as a general principle of law that one who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality exceptionally dangerous in character is bound to take exceptional precautions to prevent an injury being done thereby.

20 R. C. L., Negligence, section 47.

The degree of care with reference to electricity is stated to be the "highest degree of care."

Cumberland Tel. & Tel. v. Cosnahan, 105 Miss. 615; Porter v. Brookhaven, 95 Miss. 774; Templer v. McComb Elec. Co., 89 Miss. 1; 12 R. C. L. 52.

In our case, it was not necessary for appellee Power Company to anticipate the presence of William Henry, but his actual presence was known to them through their agent, West. Thus, certainly, if it be held in the attractive nuisance case that an owner should anticipate the presence of children and guard against injury to them, that where the owner, through its agent, is acquainted with their presence and actually brings them into the position of peril, that said owner owes said child a far greater duty of care.

McKay v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 777; Taylor v. McComb City, 89 Miss. 1; McDonald v. S. G. Gas & Elec. Co. (La.), 136 So. 169; Davis v. Ohio Valley Banking & Trust Co., 106 S.W. 843; Cook v. Houston Direct Nav. Co., 76 Texas 353, 13 S.W. 475; Lake Shore R. R. Co. v. Brown, 123 Ill. 162; McGee v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 1 A. S. R. 706; International Railroad Co. v. Cook, 2 A. S. R. 521.

Green, Green & Jackson, and A. M. Nelson, all of Jackson, of counsel for appellee; Edward W. Smith, of Clarksdale, and Sillers & Roberts, of Rosedale, for appellee.

Permitting deceased within enclosure of substation was not within scope of employment of A. A. West.

American Ry. Express Co. v. Wright, 128, Miss. 593; Crawford v. Rice, 36 F.2d 199, (5th C. C. A.); Davis v. Price, 133 Miss. 236; Duree v. Wabash Ry. Co. et al., 241 F. 454; I. C. Railroad Co. v. Green, 130 Miss. 622; Lucas E. Moore Stave Co. v. Wells, 111 Miss. 796; Martin Bros. v. Murphree, 132 Miss. 509; Natchez C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Boyd et al., 141 Miss. 593; Railway Co. v. McAfee, 71 Miss. 70; Southern Ry. Co. v. Garrett, 136 Miss. 219.

The appellee was guilty of no negligence which was the direct or proximate cause of the injury resulting in the death of decedent.

The sole proximate cause of the injury resulting in the death of the deceased was his own affirmative act, wholly unanticipated and in no wise contributed to by appellee.

Adams v. Bullock, 227 N.Y. 208, 125 N.E. 93; Belt v Charters, 123 Ill.App. 322; Bonniwell v. Milwaukee Lt., Ht. & Traction Co. (Wis.), 182 N.W. 468; Branan v. Winsatt, 298 F. 833; Blossom Oil & Cotton Co. v. Potett, 114 Tex. 230; Bush v. Weed Lbr. Co., 63 Cal.App. 426; Bonhomie & H. S. Ry. Co. v. Hinton, 155 Miss. 173; Chicas v. Foley Bros. Groc. Co., 73 Mont. 575; Chattanooga Warehouse & Cold Storage Co. v. Anderson, 141 Tenn. 288; Devine v. Erie Co., 205 Ill.App. 550; Devost v. Twin State Gas & Elec. Co. et al. (N. H.), 109 A. 839; Davis v. Malvern Lt. & Power Co., 173 N.W. 262; Elie v. Loliston A. & W. St. Ry., 112 Me. 178; Freeman v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 66 N.Y.S. 1052; Golson v. W. F. Covington Mfg. Co., 205 Ala. 226; Green v. West Penn. R. Co., 246 Pa. 340; Gavin v. O'Conner, 99 N. J. Law 162; Heinz v. N. Y. Cen. Rd. Co. (N. Y.), 188 A.D. 178; Howell v. R. R. Co., 75 Miss. 242; Hyde v. Blumenthal, 136 Md. 445; Hardy v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 226 F. 860; Heller v. N. Y., N. H. & Hartford R. Co., 265 F. 182; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Bloodworth (Miss.), 145 So. 333; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Arnola, 78 Miss. 787; Johnston v. N. O. Thompson & Houston Electric Co., 78 Neb. 24; John D. McCaffrey v. Concord Electric Co., 114 A. 397; Key West Elec. Co. v. Roberts, 89 So. 122; Keeron v. Spurgeon Merc. Co., 194 Iowa 1240; Lunsford v. Colonial Coal & Coke Co., 115 Va. 346; Lewko v. Krause Milling Co. (Wis.), 190 N.W. 924; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Daniels, 135 Miss. 33; Lavoie v. Nashua Gummed & Coated Paper Co., 105 A. 4; Lucas v. Hammond, 150 Miss. 369; McCoy v. Texas Power & Light Co., 229 S.W. 625; McCarthy v. N. Y. N. H. & Hartford, 240 F. 602; Mayfield, Water & Lt. Co. v. Webb, 129 Ky. 395; McAllister v. Jung, 112 Ill.App. 138; Myers v. Gulf Pub. Service Corp. (La.), 132 So. 416; N. Y. N. H. & Hartford R. Co. v. Frutcher, 206 U.S. 139; Nichols v. Bell Tel. Co., 226 Pa. 463; O'Gara v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 244 Pa. 159; Pioneer Co. v. Talley, 152 Ala. 162; Pioneer v. Raymond, 195 Cal. 126; Patorello v. Stone, 89 Conn. 296; Pilon v. East Hampton Gas Co., 248 Mass. 57; Parker v. Charlotte Elec. Co.,...