Houston v. Oppenheim

Decision Date09 January 1933
Docket Number30335
Citation166 Miss. 619,145 So. 339
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesHOUSTON v. OPPENHEIM et al

Division A

1. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Employers were not liable for defamatory statements of employee, unless incidental to discharge of his duty within scope of employment.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Store owner held not liable for manager's defamatory statements to saleswoman allegedly charging her with being lewd woman and making improper proposal to her.

HON. W H. POTTER, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county, HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.

Action by Carrie Belle Houston against A. D. Oppenheim and another. From the judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Rush H. Knox and Harry M. Bryan, both of Jackson, for appellant.

An analysis of the declaration in the case at bar clearly shows that appellees employed Loeb as its general manager and superintendent, with full and complete authority over the salesladies and other employees in its mercantile establishment. He was given and had the right to hire and fire. He directed the work and duties of the employees. He had actual and complete control over them. He was a vice-principal, if ever there could be one. The analogy between the situation thus created and that as shown in the Jolly case is striking.

Interstate Company et al. v. Zelma Jolly, 156 Miss. 199, 125 So. 406.

The master who puts the servant in a place of trust or responsibility, or commits to him the management of his business or care of his property, is justly held responsible when the servant, through lack of judgment or discretion, or from infirmity of temper, or under the influence of passion aroused by the circumstances and the occasion, goes beyond the strict line of his duty or authority and inflicts an unjustifiable injury upon another.

Richberger v. American Express Co., 73 Miss. 161, 18 So. 922, 31 L.R.A. 390; Magouirk v. Western Union Tel. Co., 79 Miss. 632, 31 So. 206; Buchanan v. Western Union Tel. Co., 115 S.C. 433, 106 S.E. 159, 18 A.L.R. 1414.

So far as we have been able to find from a search of the authorities, the acts of a servant (and especially those of a manager or superintendent) which involve abuse of and indecency toward women are rightly classified separately on the basis of a broad public policy as enunciated by this court in the Magouirk case and followed definitely in Interstate Company v. Jolly, supra. It is the utter-helplessness and defenselessness of women employees, women shoppers and the like that prompt the courts to fasten liability upon masters who place their vice-principals and servants in such situations as to make the injury possible.

Stone v. Eisen Co., 219 N.Y. 205, 114 N.E. 44, (1918B) L.R.A. 291.

R. B. Ricketts and Franklin, Easterling & Rosenthal, all of Jackson, for appellees.

The agent Loeb, in asking the plaintiff to go to the hotel with him, was clearly acting without the scope of his employment and his act could in no way have related to or been for the benefit of the business of the master and had no connection whatsoever with any of the duties of the said servant. In fact, the act would have been a detriment to the business of the master. The use of the phrase "you better take your damned sign down" was made at the same time and constituted a part of the res gestae and had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the duties or authority of the agent Loeb and was not uttered while the said Loeb was engaged in the business of the master.

18 R. C. L. 804; Gatley, Law and Practice of Libel and Slander in a Civil Action (1924, English Work); Odgers on Libel and Slander (5 Ed.), (English Work), page 585; Newell, Slander and Libel (4 Ed.), page 367; 6 Labatt's Master & Servant (2 Ed.), pages 6696-6697; 6 Labatt's Master & Servant, section 2226, page 6699; 18 R. C. L. 796; Barmore v. Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co., 85 Miss. 426, 38 So. 210, 3 Ann. Cas. 594; Canton Cotton Warehouse Co. v. Pool, 78 Miss. 156, 28 So. 823; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Latham, 72 Miss. 32, 16 So. 757.

In the instant case Loeb was not acting for his master and was doing nothing with a view to the master's service. He was willfully and designedly attempting to intimidate the plaintiff for the purpose of accomplishing his own independent, malicious and wicked purpose.

Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Douglass, 69 Miss. 723, 11 So. 933.

The servant who is not engaged about his master's business cannot impose liability on him.

Wells v. Robinson Bros. Motor Co., 121 So. 141; Craft v. Magnolia Stores, 138 So. 405.

Argued orally by H. M. Bryan, for appellant, and by Simon Rosenthal and R. B. Ricketts, for appellee.

OPINION

Smith, C. J.

This is a suit for defamatory statements made to, and of, the appellant by a servant of the appellees.

The declaration alleges, in substance, that: The appellees are copartners engaged in the mercantile business, conducting a mercantile establishment known as the "Miracle Store," of which H. M. Loeb was employed by them as general manager, having authority, among other things to employ and discharge salesmen. The appellant, a woman, was one of the saleswomen in the Miracle Store, and on one occasion Loeb, "who was then and there acting within the scope of his authority and employment as agent and manager of the" appellees' store, and "in the performance and discharge of his duties as manager for and on behalf" of the appellees, said to, and of the, appellant, in the presence of others: "If you are not putting out, you'd better take your damned sign down," and "If you do as I say, and go with me to the hotel, everything will be pretty and lovely, and if you don't, you'll be damned sorry, for I'm the guy that's running this store," intending, according to the declaration, to charge the appellant with being a lewd woman, and to make an improper proposal to her. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and, on the appellant's declining to plead further, the cause was dismissed.

The authority delegated to Loeb by the appellees did not expressly include the making of defamatory statements. They are therefore not liable therefor, unless their making was incidental to the discharge by Loeb of a duty he owed the appellees within the scope of his employment. Section 454,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Scott-Burr Stores Corporation v. Edgar
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1938
    ...instruct the jury to return a verdict for this appellant. A. L. I. Restatement Agency, sec. 73; In re Davis, 28 F.2d 883; Houston v. Oppenheim, 166 Miss. 619; Natchez, etc. R. Co. v. Boyd, 141 Miss. Davis v. Price, 133 Miss. 236; Martin Bros. v. Murphress, 132 Miss. 509; Moore Stave Co. v. ......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bloodworth
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1933
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ... ... 743; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stacey, 162 Miss ... 286, 139 So. 604; Wells v. Robinson Bros., etc., 153 ... Miss. 451, 121 So. 141; Houston v. Oppenheim et al., ... 166 Miss. 619, 145 So. 339; Craft v. Magnolia Stores ... Co., 161 Miss. 756, 138 So. 405; Natchez, C. & M. R ... Co. v ... ...
  • Hand v. Industrial Life & Health Ins. Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1936
    ...581; Martin Bros. v. Murphree, 96 So. 691, 132 Miss. 509; Craft v. Magnolia Stores Co., 138 So. 405, 161 Miss. 756; Houston v. Oppenheim, 145 So. 339, 166 Miss. 619; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stacy, 162 Miss. 286, 139 So. 604; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Kennedy, 167 Miss. 305, 141 So. 335; Y.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT