Johnson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1910 |
| Citation | 166 Ala. 534,52 So. 312 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. ALABAMA FUEL & IRON CO. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; John W. Inzer, Judge.
Action by Lula Johnson, administratrix, against the Alabama Fuel & Iron Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Matthews & Matthews, for appellant.
Percy Benners & Burr, for appellee.
If it should be conceded that the demurrers to counts 1 and 2 were improperly sustained, it does not follow that the judgment must be reversed. Count 1 sought to charge defendant corporation, for that one Adams, a servant in its employment and while acting within the line and scope of his authority as such servant, did wantonly, willfully, or intentionally kill plaintiff's intestate by shooting him to death. Count 2 charged that Adams recklessly and wantonly shot plaintiff's intestate to death. The case went to the jury upon other counts in every substantial respect the same, except that the act of Adams is averred in them to have been wrongfully done, thus in part, perhaps, putting off a part of the burden of proof assumed in counts 1 and 2. Certainly under the other counts the burden of proof was no greater than it would have been under the first two. It may be assumed that the proof showed to the satisfaction of the jury that Adams wantonly, willfully, or intentionally and wrongfully killed plaintiff's intestate by shooting him. There was certainly evidence which would have authorized that conclusion. Still, as the case was, the plaintiff, without being hampered or restricted in the least by any ruling of the court in that regard, went fully into the question--as fully, we must presume, as she could have done under any state of the pleading--but totally failed to prove one fact, alleged commonly in the several counts, and necessary to her recovery against the defendant in any event, namely, that Adams, at the time of the act complained of, was acting within the line and scope of his authority as the defendant's servant. The master is not responsible in damages for injuries negligently, wrongfully, wantonly, or intentionally inflicted by his servant, unless the servant be at the time acting within the general line or scope of his employment. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Whitman, 79 Ala. 328.
The facts shown, stated with all favor to the appellant, were as follows: Defendant company was operating a coal mine. Adams was it general manager. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
...N.Y.S. 394; Electric Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga.App. 470; Coal & Coke Co. v. Benson, 145 Ala. 664; Marlowe v. Bland, 154 N.C. 140; Johnson v. Fuel & Iron Co., 166 Ala. 534; Lytle v. News & Hotel Co., 27 Tex. Civ. App. 530; Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N.J.L. 754; Evers v. Krouse, 70 N.J.L. 653; Railroad v......
-
Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Powaski
...property and its employees. Quite a different situation from that presented in Wells v. Henderson Land & Lumber Co., and Johnson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., supra, upon which defendant places chief reliance. Illustrative the distinction is the following sentence, taken from the Johnson Case......
-
Chesterman v. Barmon
...kind which the employer's policymaking or management employees hired the subordinate employee to perform. In Johnson v. Alabama Fuel and Iron Co., 166 Ala. 534, 52 So. 312 (1910), the general manager of a coal mine (operated by the defendant corporation) "arrested plaintiff's intestate," wh......
-
Claris v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... cases cited in brief of appellant's counsel; ... Petroleum Iron Works v. Bailey, 124 Miss. 11, 86 So ... 644; Johnson v. Alabama Fuel & ... ...