Horton v. Jones
| Decision Date | 13 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37309,37309 |
| Parties | , 15 A.L.R.2d 824 HORTON v. JONES. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Windham & Cunningham, Booneville, for appellant.
Lumpkin & Burgess, Tupelo, for appellee.
Suit was instituted in the lower court by Mary Rogers Jones to recover from Luke Horton, trading and doing business as 622 Cab Company, the sum of $440.00. From a judgment for that amount, Horton appeals.
The declaration charged that the appellee engaged a cab of the appellant, driven by Herbert Woodall, as agent of appellant, to take her from the downtown area to her home in Tupelo; that when the cab stopped, she got out, but the driver did not give sufficient time to get her billfold or pocketbook; that he slammed the door, and hurried off with her pocketbook which contained the amount sued for. A plea of the general issue was filed.
The proof conformed to the allegations of the declaration. When appellee arrived at her destination, the driver upbraided her that it took as long for her to get in as to build a car, and ordered her to get out. She told him that she was crippled. She left the cab, taking some packages, but did not have time to get the pocketbook off of the seat. The driver slammed the door and hurried off, with appellee sereaming over her loss. As the cab driver turned the corner of the block, he shook the pocketbook at her. According to her evidence, it then contained $440.00. She immediately called the cab office, reported the incident, and let them know that Woodall had left her. The matter was reported to the police, and a radio message over the local station was given out. Following the incident, Woodall took a fare to Clarksdale. On his return about two o'clock the next morning he called Horton, and then the police, and surrendered to them. He delivered to Horton the money received from the fare to Clarksdale. Appellant admitted that Woodall was working in his employ at the time as a cabdriver. In his brief, he also concedes that the proof as to the theft is not contradicted.
At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff in the court below, defendant made a motion to exclude the evidence, and direct a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that Woodall's act was outside the scope of his employment, and that there was no evidence to show that defendant condoned, affirmed or acquiesced therein. This motion was overruled. At the close of all the evidence, defendant renewed his motion, and the same was again overruled. Plaintiff also asked for a directed verdict; but this motion was overruled, and the case was submitted to the jury.
Appellant complains of error in overruling his motions for directed verdicts, and also in the giving of two instructions for the plaintiff.
As regards these instructions, we think, when they are considered together with the instructions given for the defendant, as they must be, a correct interpretation and announcement of the law was stated. However, in view of the conclusion which we have reached, it will not be necessary to make a detailed comment on the instructions.
Scope of employment is a relative term, difficult of exact definition. It comprehends consideration of the surrounding facts and circumstances. Attention must be given to the character of the employment and the nature of the wrongful deed--the time and place where committed. It must be borne in mind that liability is not limited to the acts of the employee which promote the objects of the employment. Sometimes the business of the master is combined with the business or pleasure of the employee.
Where the servant, in committing the wrongful deed, acts about the master's business for which he is employed, the master is liable, although in doing the act, the servant stepped beyond his authority. Walters v. Stonewall Cotton Mills, 136 Miss. 361, 101 So. 495. Even though the conduct of the servant was unauthorized, it is still in the scope of his employment, if it is of the same general nature of, or incidental to, the conduct authorized. Loper v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 166 Miss. 79, 145 So. 743. In order for the master to escape liability, it must be shown that the servant, when the wrongful act was committed, had abandoned his employment and gone about some purpose of his own not incident to his employment. Barmore v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 85 Miss. 426, 38 So. 210, 70 L.R.A. 627, 3 Ann.Cas. 594. If time and logical sequence do not separate the injurious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 2001-CA-01305-SCT.
...cites a litany of Mississippi cases imputing liability to employers for the intentional torts of their employees. See Horton v. Jones, 208 Miss. 257, 44 So.2d 397 (1950) (imputing liability to employer cab company for employee driver's hastily driving off in cab still containing plaintiff's......
-
Dunn v. Jack Walker's Audio Visual Center
...197 So.2d 891, 894 (Miss.1967); Wallace v. J.C. Penney Co., 236 Miss. 367, 373-74, 109 So.2d 876, 878 (1959); Horton v. Jones, 208 Miss. 257, 263, 44 So.2d 397, 400 (1950). The common rationale undergirding the holdings of these cases is that the jury verdict on the point at issue gave the ......
-
White Auto Stores v. Reyes
...244; Oman v. United States, 10 Cir., 179 F.2d 738; Keller v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 111 Mont. 28, 108 P.2d 605; Horton v. Jones, 208 Miss. 257, 44 So.2d 397, 15 A.L.R.2d 824; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Creekmore, 199 Miss. 48, 23 So.2d 250; Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp., 297 Mass. 44, 8......
-
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Salvation Army, 2001-CA-01599-SCT.
...committed, had abandoned his employment and gone about some purpose of his own not incident to his employment. Horton v. Jones, 208 Miss. 257, 259-60, 44 So.2d 397, 399 (1950) (citations ¶ 16. In the punitive damage context, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a) requires that a claimant must prove......