Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Sharit
Decision Date | 25 March 1937 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 85 |
Citation | 173 So. 386,234 Ala. 40 |
Parties | LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. SHARIT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Leigh M. Clark, Judge.
Action for damages by H.T. Sharit against the Lehigh Portland Cement Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7326.
Reversed and remanded.
Bradley Baldwin, All & White, of Birmingham, for appellant.
John W Altman and Gordon Abele, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
A general averment in a count, that an injury was wantonly inflicted, or damage was wantonly caused, following proper averments of inducement showing that the defendant was under duty not to wantonly inflict such injury or cause such damage, is sufficient. Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co v. Jones, 146 Ala. 277, 41 So. 146; Southern Railway Co. v. Weatherlow, 153 Ala. 171, 44 So. 1019; Id., 164 Ala. 151, 51 So. 381; Barbour v. Shebor, 177 Ala. 304, 309, 58 So. 276; Harbison-Walker Refractories Company v. Scott, 185 Ala. 641, 64 So. 547; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Woods, 201 Ala. 553, 78 So. 907.
However, if the pleader undertakes to state the facts constituting wantonness, the facts stated must warrant the inference that the injury was wantonly inflicted or damage caused, and the pleader must so allege, otherwise the count will not withstand appropriate demurrer. Southern Railway Co. v. Weatherlow, supra; Blackmon v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 185 Ala. 635, 64 So. 592.
Where, as here, the master is sued for the wanton conduct of the servant or agent acting within the scope of his employment, the action is in case. National Baking & Lunch Co. v. Wilson, 198 Ala. 90, 73 So. 436; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Abernathy, 197 Ala. 512, 73 So. 103; Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Francis, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1, 31 L.R.A. 193, 55 Am.St.Rep. 930; Gulf States Steel Co. et al. v. Fail, 201 Ala. 524, 78 So. 878.
If, as averred in count E of the complaint, the plaintiff was injured and his property was damaged as a proximate consequence of the wanton conduct of the defendant's servants while acting in and about their master's business, the master is liable therefor under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Company et al. v. Doak, 152 Ala. 166, 44 So. 627, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 389; Epperson v. First Nat. Bank of Reform, 209 Ala. 12, 95 So. 343; Collum Motor Co. v. Anderson, 222 Ala. 643, 133 So. 693; Birmingham Gas Co. v. Sanford et ux., 226 Ala. 129, 145 So. 485.
The averments in the body of the count, that "the defendant was engaged in blasting operations on premises of defendant near and in close proximity to said home and property of plaintiff and the defendant did during the time as aforesaid so conduct itself in and about said blasting operations that as a proximate consequence thereof the plaintiff was damaged and his said property was damaged and injured as is set forth in Count D of this complaint as last amended," when considered along with the averments charging the damnifying act to the defendant's servants or agents while acting within the scope of their employment, are clearly averments of inducement, going to show that the defendant was under duty not to negligently or wantonly injure the plaintiff and his property.
The judgment here is that the demurrer was overruled without error.
The next contention of the appellant--that said count E charges corporate participation in the damnifying act, and under the holding of the court in City Delivery Co. v. Henry, 139 Ala. 161, 34 So. 389, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict as to said count--is fully answered by the foregoing observations as to the nature and legal effect of the averments of said count.
Punitive damages are not recoverable as a matter of right, except as provided by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henderson By and Through Hartsfield v. Alabama Power Co.
...Rembert, 282 Ala. 5, 208 So.2d 205 (1968); Treadwell Ford, Inc. v. Leek, 272 Ala. 544, 133 So.2d 24 (1961); Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Sharit, 234 Ala. 40, 173 So. 386 (1937). The principle expressed in these cases, however, upon close analysis, forecloses the rule that APCo In Rembert, ......
-
Haynes v. Alfa Financial Corp.
...6, 208 So.2d 205, 206 (1968); Treadwell Ford, Inc. v. Leek, 272 Ala. 544, 546, 133 So.2d 24, 25 (1961); Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Sharit, 234 Ala. 40, 43, 173 So. 386, 388 (1937). Therefore, after punitive damages have been assessed, the societal goals and interests of the state, as det......
- First Nat. Bank v. Lowery
-
Grady v. Wallace
...it could be so corrected, which we do not decide. See Schock v. Bear, 250 Ala. 529, 35 So.2d 97 (headnote 11); Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Sharit, 234 Ala. 40, 173 So. 386. For the errors pointed out, the case is reversed and Reversed and remanded. LAWSON, STAKELY and MERRILL, JJ., concur. ...