Kramer Service v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 17 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36350. |
| Citation | 201 Miss. 805,29 So.2d 456 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | KRAMER SERVICE, Inc., v. ROBINSON et al. |
Carl Marshall, of Gulfport, Jackson & Young, of Jackson, and Gordon Boswell, of New Orleans, for appellant.
U. B. Parker, of Wiggins, R. A. Wallace, of Gulfport, and Joe Daniel, of Jackson, for appellees.
Appellees Mrs. Lillie Robinson and her minor son Eldon Robinson, wife and child respectively of Roy L. Robinson deceased, brought an action against Tri-State Transit Company of Louisiana, Inc., and its alleged servant, Pat Havens, and against Kramer Service, Inc., and its alleged servant, W. O Martin, to recover damages for the death of Robinson caused as claimed by plaintiff, by the negligence of said defendants. The declaration set out that a Kramer truck, driven by Martin, and a Tri-State bus, driven by Havens, were proceeding in a southerly direction some three miles south of Wiggins, Mississippi, the bus being behind and near the truck. As ground of liability against Tri-State and Havens, it asserted that Havens, as such driver and servant, was driving in a fast and reckless manner; that rain was falling and the weather foggy, and he negligently undertook to pass the Kramer truck and crossed into the left lane of the road; that Robinson was proceeding north in that lane, where he had a right to travel, and that there was a head-on collision between the automobile being driven by Robinson and the bus driven by Havens, resulting in the death of Robinson. As ground of liability against Martin and Kramer, it was alleged that Martin suddenly, and without warning, decreased his speed, making it necessary for Havens to either pull into the left lane or strike the truck, and that the truck had over its top a tarpaulin which was loose and flapping on the left of the truck, rendering it impossible for Havens to see a signal had Martin given one. In other words, liability of Tri-State and Kramer rests upon the negligence of their respective employees while such employees were acting within the scope of their employment and above the business of their employers.
In the course of the trial, plaintiffs took a non-suit as to Tri-State, having reached a settlement with that defendant. The case proceeded against Havens, Martin and Kramer. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Havens and Martin, thereby exonerating them from negligence, but found against Kramer in the sum of $19,500, from which verdict, and the judgment entered thereon, Kramer appeals here.
A number of serious questions are raised on the appeal, but we deem it necessary for us to pass upon only one of them, which will dispose of the case. And that it whether or not Martin was about Kramer's business and acting within the scope of his employment at the time and place of the accident, assuming, but not deciding, that the truck involved was owned by Kramer and was being driven by Martin. And, in this connection, it should be stated that under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGarrh v. United States
...School Supply Co., 170 Miss. 310, 155 So. 209 (1934); Stovall v. Jepsen, 195 Miss. 115, 13 So. 2d 229 (1943); Kramer Service v. Robinson, 201 Miss. 805, 29 So.2d 456 (1947); Simmons v. James, 210 Miss. 515, 49 So.2d 839 (1951); Lovett Motor Company v. Walley, 217 Miss. 384, 64 So.2d 370 (19......
-
Lovett Motor Co. v. Walley
...v. Mississippi School Supply Company, 170 Miss. 310, 155 So. 209; Stovall v. Jepsen, 195 Miss. 115, 13 So.2d 229; Kramer Service Inc., v. Robinson, 201 Miss. 805, 29 So.2d 456; Mississippi Power and Light Company v. Lembo, 202 Miss. 532, 32 So.2d Applying these well established principles t......
-
International Shoe Co. v. Harrison
...to his master required him to go in the opposite direction in order to deliver the papers.' In the case of Kramer Service, Inc., v. Robinson, 201 Miss. 805, 29 So.2d 456, 457, the Court held that where a truck driver had gone thirty miles beyond his territory in which lay his duty and autho......
-
Pennebaker v. Parker, 40661
...Lovett Motor Company v. Walley, 217 Miss. 384, 64 So.2d 370; Stovall v. Jepsen, 195 Miss. 115, 13 So.2d 229; Kramer Service, Inc. v. Robinson, 201 Miss. 805, 29 So.2d 456; International Shoe Co. v. Harrison, 217 Miss. 152, 63 So.2d 837; Simmons v. James, 210 Miss. 515, 49 So.2d The trouble ......