Holder v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 12 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | 15038. |
| Citation | 7 S.E.2d 833,193 S.C. 176 |
| Parties | HOLDER v. HAYNES et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1940. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Claude R. Dunbar, of Spartanburg, for appellants.
Blease & Merchant, Johnson & Johnson, and Evans, Galbraith & Holcombe, all of Spartanburg, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff, a minor, by her guardian ad litem, to recover damages for personal injuries, which she alleged she suffered from collision with a motor truck driven by Willie Johnson as custodian and driver for John E. Haynes. She alleged that her injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendants, their agents and servants; that the Pennsylvania Casualty Company filed with the Public Service Commission its policy of insurance covering the aforesaid motor truck owned by the defendant John E. Haynes and driven by Willie Johnson, as provided for under the terms of the Motor Transportation Act, insuring and indemnifying the plaintiff and all other members of the public against any loss, injury or damage by reason of personal injury as a result of any act of negligence of the operator of the said truck and agreeing to pay any injury or damage that may be caused or recovered on account of the negligent operation of the said truck on the public highways of Spartanburg County.
The defendant, Pennsylvania Casualty Company, moved that the plaintiff be required to make the complaint more definite and certain "by separately stating the various causes of action united by plaintiff in the complaint". The motion was heard and refused by Judge Sease.
The defendants Willie Johnson, John E. Haynes and Pennsylvania Casualty Company filed separate answers.
Willie Johnson's answer was a general denial; that John E Haynes is the owner of the truck involved in this matter, and that he is engaged with the said truck in hauling only freight for hire in Spartanburg County, S. C., and that he is licensed with the South Carolina Public Service Commission for the sole purpose of hauling freight or property under classification F of Section 8510 of the 1932 Code of S.C.; denies paragraphs 5 and 6.
For further defense, re-alleges paragraphs 1 to 5 and alleges further that the plaintiff, Joyce Holder, at the time of injuries, was walking on that part of the public highway which she knew was traveled by the public generally in automobiles; yet, with this knowledge, she carelessly negligently and recklessly walked along said highway without keeping proper watch, and without listening and looking for approaching traffic; and her own carelessness, recklessness and negligence contributed directly and proximately to her injury, as the sole, or contributory, cause of her injury.
The answer of John E. Haynes, omitting reference to the formal allegations: 2. Admits that he is the owner and operator of the truck involved in this action; that he has had issued to him a Public Service Commission License No. 21, F. 902, and is engaged with the said truck in the business of hauling only freight and property, but denies that he is engaged for hire except so much as relates only of hauling cotton from various cotton gins located in Spartanburg County. Answering only for himself, he denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 5; denies paragraph 6 on lack of information; denies paragraph 7 and all other allegations of the complaint not specifically admitted.
For a further defense, answering solely for himself, the said defendant alleges that if an accident occurred, as is alleged in paragraph 5 of the complaint, which is expressly denied, that the defendant Willie Johnson, while so operating the said truck, knew he was operating it against specific instructions from its owner, this defendant, that it was without the knowledge, consent or information of John E. Haynes. That the truck was being operated on Sunday solely for the personal use and pleasure of said Willie Johnson, and on a mission and trip foreign to the business for which the truck had been purchased by Haynes and licensed by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. For further defense, there is alleged the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of Joyce Holder in the particulars set out, as contributing directly and proximately to the injury, thereby barring her from recovery from this defendant.
The amended answer of the defendant Pennsylvania Casualty Company was: A general denial; admits on information and belief that John E. Haynes is the owner of the named and described truck with Public Service License No. 21 F. 902, and that he is engaged with said truck in hauling only freight and property for hire in Spartanburg County, S. C., and that he is licensed to haul with said truck only freight and property under classification F of Section 8510 of the Code of 1932; denies paragraphs 5 and 6 of complaint; admits so much of paragraph 7 as states that Pennsylvania Casualty Company of Lancaster, Pa., has filed with the Public Service Commission of South Carolina its policy of insurance No. 400103, reference to which is hereby prayed for its actual contents; but denies that there is any liability against Pennsylvania Casualty Company by reason of any injuries received by above-named Joyce Holder or anyone else in connection with the use of the truck named in the complaint, at the time said Joyce Holder says she was struck. Denies the remainder of paragraph 7.
For further defense, re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 7 of this amended answer, and alleges the following on information and belief: Here follow allegations of negligence, carelessness and recklessness which were the cause of or at least contributed to, her injuries directly or as the proximate cause thereof.
We have been somewhat, and probably unnecessarily, prolix in setting out the pleadings because of the fact that the grounds of appeal and arguments thereon have taken a wide range, and it is best that the whole matter be before the court for easy reference.
The case came on to be heard by Judge Wm. H. Grimball and a jury at the fall 1938, term, of the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County.
Motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and new trial were made, at proper times, by the defendants John E. Haynes and Pennsylvania Casualty Company, and each motion was refused. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and this appeal followed the refusal of the motion for new trial.
There are 49 exceptions. Appellants' counsel has grouped them, for this hearing, under five questions. In our judgment, it will not be necessary to consider each of these questions in detail.
The primary and vital question is: If the evidence shows that at the time that plaintiff was injured the truck which inflicted the injury was being driven by Willie Johnson, an employee of John E. Haynes, without the knowledge, consent or permission of John E. Haynes, the owner thereof, not in the line of Johnson's duty as such employee and not in or about the business of his employer, but wholly about Johnson's personal affairs and pleasure, is the owner of the truck liable?
Does the solution of the question call into play the doctrine of respondeat superior? The application of that rule has taken many variations because of the differing facts of the various cases, since it is often a difficult question to determine when the servant or agent is about the master's business, or has deviated from it to go about his own affairs or pleasures which are wholly unrelated to the master's business and wholly without the scope of the servant's employment.
In the case of Southwest Dairy Products Company v. De Frates, a Texas case filed February 22, 1939, and reported in 132 Tex. 556, 125 S.W.2d 282, 283, 122 A. L.R. 854, the case was certified to the Texas Supreme Court by the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second Supreme Judicial District, upon the following certification:
"By its first assignment of error appellant insists that the evidence showed conclusively that at the time of the collision Henderson, its employee, was not acting within the scope of his employment and for that reason the court erred in refusing its motion for an instructed verdict in its favor. ***
We may add to the above citations 132 Tex. 556, 125 S.W.2d 282, 122 A.L.R. 856.
The Supreme Court of Texas continues: ***" Citing other authorities from Texas Courts.
There is an exhaustive annotation to this case in 122 A.L.R. 858, covering all phases of this question under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Massey v. War Emergency Co-op. Ass'n
...matter sought to be struck is relevant and proper and the motions to strike are overruled except as granted above. Under Holder v. Haynes, 193 S.C. 176, 77 S.E.2d 833 Bryant v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 202 S.C. 456, 25 S.E.2d 489, a plaintiff cannot be required to separately state his cause in to......
-
Stevens v. Moore
... ... travels of the servants in the cases of Knight v. Laurens ... Motor Car Co., 108 S.C. 179, 93 S.E. 869, L.R.A. 1918B, ... 151, and Holder v. Haynes, 193 S.C. 176, 7 S.E.2d ... 833. See the differentiation of these decisions in ... Carroll v. Beard-Laney, 207 S.C. 339, 35 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Jones v. Elbert
...and is in furtherance of the master's business. Lazar v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 197 S.C. 74, 14 S.E.2d 560; Holder v. Haynes, 193 S.C. 176, 7 S.E.2d 833.' All the foregoing cited cases are in line with the old, but frequently cited, case of Polatty v. Charleston and Western Carol......
-
Adams v. South Carolina Power Co.
... ... his master's business. So, too, where the deviation is ... very marked and unusual, as in Holder v. Haynes, 193 ... S.C. 176, 7 S.E.2d 833, the Court in like manner may ... determine that the servant was not on the master's ... business at ... ...