Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
Decision Date | 26 May 1927 |
Docket Number | (No. 12210.) |
Citation | 140 S.E. 443 |
Parties | JOHNSON. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
CO. et al.
Cothran, J., and Purdy, A. A. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; H. F. Rice, Judge.
Suit by E. P. Johnson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, J. A. Dorsey, and another. Judgment for plaintiff against defendants named, and defendants named appeal. Affirmed.
The order of Judge Rice, directed to be reported, is as follows:
F. L. Willcox, of Florence, for appellants.
Whiting & Baker, of Florence, for respondent.
The plaintiff respondent, a news butcher, employed by the Union News Company, brought suit against the defendants Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Brown and Dorsey, two of the agents of the Railroad Company, engaged in its police department. Plaintiff alleged that Brown and Dorsey went into a car, where he had his containers of merchandise, and forced him to open these, charging plaintiff with having contraband liquor in his possession; that the officers had no warrant authorizing the search, but that it was done by threats that they would get a warrant of arrest if plaintiff did not submit, and that under this threat he allowed them to open and search through the containers; that the officers cursed and abused him, and detained him from his business and in their custody; that the torts alleged were willful and wanton.
The defendants admitted the search of plaintiff's containers, and that they had no warrant therefor, but alleged that the search was made with the consent of the plaintiff, and denied that any profane language was used, that any tort was committed, and that any damage occurred. It was admitted that no whisky was found in plaintiff's possession.
The cause was heard before his honor, Circuit Judge H. F. Rice, and a jury. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, acquitted Brown, and was against the defendants J. A. Dorsey and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, and was in the following language:
"We find for the plaintiff $1,500 punitive $500 actual damage against the A. C. L. R. R. Co.; $300 punitive damage and $200 actual damage against J. A. Dorsey."
The defendants Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and Dorsey moved for a new trial. Judge Rice, in disposing of this motion, stated the questions raised before him and discussed these in an able manner. His order will be reported in full.
The effect of Judge Rice's order was to grant a new trial, unless the plaintiff remitted of the verdict in bis favor the sum of $300 of the actual damages found for him against the railroad company, thereby making the verdict only $200 actual damages against both defendants jointly, and $1,800 punitive damages, apportioned between the two defendants, with $1,500 thereof against the railroad company, and $300 against the defendant Dorsey.
The defendants Dorsey and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company have appealed to this court from the result in the lower court, and bring five exceptions for our consideration.
Three of the exceptions (3, 4, and 5) relate to the same matters, and will be considered together. The contention of these exceptions is that the verdict against the railroad company, the master, should not be permitted to stand in a greater amount than the verdict against Dorsey, the servant.
We have been greatly impressed by the strong arguments submitted by both the counsel for the appellants and the respondent. Counsel for the appellants, to sustain the position taken, cites the following cases decided by this court: Jenkins v. Railroad Co., 80 S. C. 408, 71 S. E. 1010; Sparks v. A. C. l; Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 730; Jones v. Southern Railway Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183; Beauchamp v. Winnsboro Granite Corporation, 113 S. O. 522, 101 S. E. 856; Durst v. Southern Railway Co., 130 S. C. 165, 125 S. E. 651. We shall not undertake now to re view fully all these cases. Later in this opinion we shall refer to some of them in consideration of certain matters.
|1] At this time, we think it only necessary to say that, in so far as those cases are applicable to the main proposition we have before us at this time for determination, this one important principle runs through all of them, to wit: That, when the master and the servant are sued together for the same act of negligence or willful tort, and the master's liability rests solely upon the servant's conduct, a verdict against the master alone is illogical and cannot stand. This seems to us to be a reasonable and proper rule, for it is an inconsistent declaration on the part of the court to say that, while the servant is without blame in his conduct, yet, because of that same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monroe v. Pape
...Ware v. Dunn. 1947, 80 Cal.App.2d 936, 183 P.2d 128; Walker v. Whittle, 1951, 83 Ga.App. 445, 64 S.E.2d 87; Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1927, 142 S.C. 125, 140 S.E. 443; Deaderick v. Smith, 1950, 33 Tenn.App. 151, 230 S.W.2d 72 This is so not only because of the practical impedim......
-
Campus Sweater & Sportswear v. MB Kahn Const.
...in exemplary damages for the misconduct of an agent ...". Palmer v. Railroad, 3 S.C. 580, 597-600 (1872); Johnson v. Atlantic Coastline R.R., 142 S.C. 125, 140 S.E. 443 (1927). The evidence is capable of the inference that the corporation, through the acts of its agents, knew of the defecti......
-
Jacobs v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...113 S. E. 577; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Rhodes v. So. Ry., 139 S. C. 146, 137 S. E. 434; Johnson v. A. C. L. Ry., 142 S. C. 155, 140 S. E. 443; Goodwin v. Columbia Mills, 80 S. C. 551, 61 S. E. 390;-Bridger v. Railway Co., 27 S. C. 463, 3 S. E. 860, 13 Am. St. R......
-
Jacobs v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...137, 113 S.E. 577; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S.C. 59, 85 S.E. 233; Rhodes v. So. Ry., 139 S.C. 146, 137 S.E. 434; Johnson v. A. C. L. Ry., 142 S.C. 155, 140 S.E. 443; Goodwin v. Columbia Mills, 80 S.C. 551, 61 S.E. Bridger v. Railway Co., 27 S.C. 463, 3 S.E. 860, 13 Am. St. Rep. 653. Th......