Hodges v. Malone & Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 235,235 |
| Citation | 235 N.C. 512,70 S.E.2d 478 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | HODGES, v. MALONE & CO., Inc. |
Wilson & Johnson, Lillington, for plaintiff appellee.
Neill McK. Salmon, Lillington, for defendant appellant.
The defendant contends and strongly urges that the court below should have dismissed plaintiff's action by judgment as of nonsuit on the ground that he failed to show that the driver of the truck was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. This point is urged here with great earnestness, but the difficulty of defendant's position on this point lies in the fact that defendant has admitted in its answer that defendant's driver was its agent and acting within the scope of his duty and authority at the time of the collision. While this admission is not couched in direct and specific language, that the defendant's driver was acting within the scope of his authority at the time of the collision the defendant does admit in his pleadings and thereby puts at rest forever the fact that the driver was operating the truck as defendant's agent at the time of and in respect to the exact transaction resulting in the collision out of which the injury arose. This is in effect an admission and the phraseology connotes action and conduct within the scope of the duty of his employment at the exact moment of the collision. It was competent but not necessary that the plaintiff put these two paragraphs of the pleadings in evidence. The allegation of agency and scope of employment were issuable facts which, when admitted, are put beyond the range of questioning and need not be introduced in evidence. Royster v. Hancock, 235 N.C. 110, 69 S.E.2d 29.
The facts in this cause with respect to agency and scope of employment go far beyond the principle discussed in Freeman v. Dalton, 183 N.C. 538, 111 S.E. 863, and Toler v. Savage, 226 N.C. 208, 37 S.E.2d 485, and Carter v. Thurston Motor Lines, 227 N.C. 193, 41 S.E.2d 586. Clearly in the case at Bar, it was unnecessary to submit to the jury the question of agency and scope of employment in view of the defendant's admissions. Webb v. Statesville Theatre Corp., 226 N.C. 342, 38 S.E.2d 84. A submission of this phase of the case to the jury therefore resulted in no harm to the defendant.
The defendant brings forward and discusses in his brief a number of other exceptions, most of which arise from exceptions, to the charge of the court upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. In the view we take of the law relating to defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit, it becomes unnecessary to discuss such of defendant's exceptions as relate to agency and scope of employment. Ordinarily the doctrine of respondeat superior in cases of this nature are substantive features upon which the court is required to give instructions. Such a requirement is eliminated on the facts in this case. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peacock, 217
...Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker, 235 N.C. 326, 69 S.E.2d 841; State v. Birchfield, 235 N.C. 410, 70 S.E.2d 5; Hodges v. Malone & Co., 235 N.C. 512, 70 S.E.2d 478, and that a new trial would probably result in a different verdict. State v. Bullins, 226 N.C. 142, 36 S.E.2d 915; State v. Gibson, 22......
-
Widows Fund of Sudan Temple v. Umphlett
...did not suffice to establish additional facts found by the court. The burden of establishing error is on appellant. Hodges v. Malone & Co., 235 N.C. 512, 70 S.E.2d 478; Shelly v. Grainger, 204 N.C. 488, 168 S.E. 736. If it should be conceded that the finding was not supported by the evidenc......
-
White v. Price
...but that the result was materially affected thereby to their hurt. Garland v. Penegar, 235 N.C. 517, 70 S.E.2d 486; Hodges v. Malonc & Co., 235 N.C. 512, 515, 70 S.E.2d 478. The order of compulsory reference of the case was based on the ground that it involved a complicated question of boun......
- Raleigh Cemetery Ass'n v. City of Raleigh, 455