Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 06 December 1941
• Citation: 160 S.W.2d 410
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. v. BRADLEY et al.

160 S.W.2d 410

LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. v. BRADLEY et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 6, 1941.

Error to Circuit Court, Davidson County; Laurence B. Howard, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Maude Eva Bradley and others against the Life and Casualty Insurance Company and another for damages resulting from an automobile collision. To review a judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the action as against named defendant, plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari.

Petition denied.

Hume, Howard, Davis & Gale, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Elliott Simrell and Rutherford & Rutherford, all of Nashville, for defendant in error.

McKINNEY, Justice.

These four suits were heard together in which the original plaintiffs sought to recover damages resulting from an automobile collision on Holly Street in the City of Nashville. The defendants were Life and Casualty Insurance Company and T. L. Fox. There was a verdict in favor of each plaintiff against both defendants. In the Court of Appeals a voluntary nonsuit was taken against Fox, and that court dismissed all four suits against the Insurance Company upon the ground that plaintiffs had failed to carry the burden of showing that Fox had been expressly or impliedly authorized by the Insurance Company to use his individual car in making premium collections on industrial policies. The uncontroverted facts, as set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

"The defendant raises no question as to the negligence of the driver of the car, T. L. Fox, or as to the amount of the verdicts but the only controversy is as to the liability of the defendant Insurance Company for the acts of T. L. Fox driving his own personal car, while he was an agent working for the Insurance Company.

"Only two witnesses testified as to any connection Fox had with the defendant Insurance Company. They were Mrs. Beatrice Marsh and W. E. Marsh. The substance of their testimony was that T. L. Fox was an agent of and collected premiums on industrial insurance for the Life and Casualty Insurance Company in the neighborhood of where the accident happened, and shortly before the accident had made a collection of a premium on Holly Street; that there was another man in the car with Fox and this man was finding out where collections were to be made in that neighborhood so that he could take over the territory and make such collections himself and that after the accident, and on the same day, Fox called at the Marsh home to collect premiums on policies issued by the Life and Casualty Insurance Company. This is the substance of the proof. There is no proof that Fox was authorized by the Company to use his own car, that any official of the Company knew he was using his own car, that he had any agreement with the Company as to how he should travel in connection with his work, that the territory in which his work was to be done required the use of an automobile, that he had ever used a car before in this work or that the Company officials knew that he had a car.

"The burden of proof was of course upon the plaintiffs below and in order to hold the Insurance Company liable in damages for the negligence of Fox, it must be shown that he had express or implied authority to use his own car in the performance of his work. Proof only that he was an agent of the Company does not raise a presumption that he had authority to drive his own car in connection with his business."

The rule of express or implied authorization, as announced by the Court of Appeals, is one of universal application, the usual issue in this class of cases being whether there are sufficient facts and circumstances shown to establish an implied authorization. This question is fully considered in our recent decisions in Tucker...