Jones v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 9539.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHYDRICK
Citation90 S.E. 183
PartiesJONES. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
Docket Number(No. 9539.)
Decision Date12 October 1916

(106 S.C. 20)
90 S.E. 183

JONES.
v.
SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

(No. 9539.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct 12, 1916.


[90 S.E. 183]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Edgefield County; Thos. S. Sease, Judge.

Action by E. Pendleton Jones, Jr., against the Southern Railway Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the company appeals. Reversed.

N. G. Evans and S. M. Smith, both of Edgefield, for appellant.

J. Wm. Thurmond and Sheppard Bros., all of Edgefield, for respondent.

HYDRICK, J. [1] Plaintiff sued the railway company and three of its agents and servants, Shealey, Parks, and Gilliard, for damages caused him by the bite of a cat which was allowed to be on the company's premises while he was there attending to business with the company. He alleged that the cat was known by defendants to be vicious, having previously bitten others; also, that it had rabies, when it bit him, and, in consequence, he suffered the administration of Pasteur's treatment for the prevention of hydrophobia. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Shealey, and instructed the jury that they might find for or against any or all the other defendants. The jury returned a verdict for $750 against the company alone.

Under the recent decisions in Sparks v. Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739, and Jenkins v. Railroad Co., 89 S. C. 408, 71 S. E. 1010, the verdict is illogical and cannot stand, as no delict of the company was proved other than through and by the agency of Parks and Gilliard, one or both. The company's liability is predicated solely upon the acts or omissions of one or both of them; and if neither of them is liable, it necessarily follows that the company is not. It would be unreasonable to say that the servant did no wrong, but, nevertheless, his master is liable, when the only wrong charged against the master is that of the servant.

There is another reason why the verdict cannot be sustained. The company's liability is predicated solely upon the conduct of its servants under the doctrine respondeat superior; and, under the facts and circumstances proved, if the company is liable to plaintiff, the servant or servants whose wrongful acts or omissions actually caused the injury are liable over to the company for the amount which it will be compelled to pay on account thereof. But, as the verdict acquits both the servants of having done any wrong, the company is deprived of its remedy against the offending servant or servants, because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12210.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 26, 1927
    ...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 sha......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...In the meantime—that is, between the first and second appeals in the Sparks Case—the case of Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 21, 90 S. E. 183, arose. In that case the alleged liability of the company was based solely, in the complaint, upon the wrongful acts of certain servants of the ......
  • Jenkins v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11630.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 13, 1924
    ...E. 701, the familiar principle is announced that there is no contribution between two joint wrongdoers. In Jones v. R Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183, it is declared: "The company's liability is predicated solely upon the conduct of its servants under the doctrine respondeat superior; and, ......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...the master alone will not be allowed to stand. Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344; Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183; Sparks v. Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739. He specifically charged the jury: "If the lamp in question was overturned and fell in c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Johnson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12210.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 26, 1927
    ...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 sha......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 1926
    ...In the meantime—that is, between the first and second appeals in the Sparks Case—the case of Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 21, 90 S. E. 183, arose. In that case the alleged liability of the company was based solely, in the complaint, upon the wrongful acts of certain servants of the ......
  • Jenkins v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11630.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 13, 1924
    ...E. 701, the familiar principle is announced that there is no contribution between two joint wrongdoers. In Jones v. R Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183, it is declared: "The company's liability is predicated solely upon the conduct of its servants under the doctrine respondeat superior; and, ......
  • Durst v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 11629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 10, 1924
    ...the master alone will not be allowed to stand. Sparks v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 145, 95 S. E. 344; Jones v. Railroad Co., 106 S. C. 20, 90 S. E. 183; Sparks v. Railroad Co., 104 S. C. 266, 88 S. E. 739. He specifically charged the jury: "If the lamp in question was overturned and fell in c......
  • 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