Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co v. Yeldell, No. 171

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: STONE
• Citation: 51 A. L. R. 1376,274 U.S. 112,47 S.Ct. 509,71 L.Ed. 952
• Parties: LOUIS PIZITZ DRY GOODS CO., Inc., v. YELDELL
• Docket Number: No. 171
• Decision Date: 11 April 1927

274 U.S. 112 47 S.Ct. 509 71 L.Ed. 952 LOUIS PIZITZ DRY GOODS CO., Inc.,

v.

YELDELL.

No. 171. Argued Feb. 25, 28, 1927. Decided April 11, 1927.

Page 113

Mr. Joseph P. Mudd, of Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Benjamin F. Ray, of Birmingham, Ala., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Defendant in error, an administrator, brought suit in the circuit court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to recover for the wrongful death of his intestate, caused by the negligent operation of an elevator by an employee of plaintiff in error in its department store. The action was founded upon the so-called Homicide Act of Alabama (section 5696, Code of 1923) printed in the margin. ¹ This statute authorizes the recovery of damages from either a principal or an agent, in such amount as the jury may assess, for wrongful act or negligence causing death. The jury returned a verdict of $9,500 and judgment for that amount was affirmed on

Page 114

appeal. 213 Ala. 222, 104 So. 526. The case comes here on writ of error. Judicial Code, § 237, as amended (Comp. St. § 1214).

Plaintiff in error does not deny its liability for the negligent act of its employee. But it calls attention to the fact that the Homicide Act imposing liability upon the employer for death resulting from the wrongful acts, omissions or negligence of its employees, as interpreted by the state courts, permits the jury, as in this case, to assess punitive damages against the employer for the mere negligence of its employee. Richmond & Danville R. R. v. Freeman, 97 Ala. 289, 11 So. 800. A statute which so authorizes the mulcting of the employer, it is argued, is 'unreasonably oppressive, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the fundamental conceptions of fair play, and, therefore, repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment.'

The legislation now challenged has been on the statute books of Alabama in essentially its present form since 1872. The liability imposed is for tortious acts resulting in death, but the damages, which may be punitive even though the act complained of involved no element of recklessness, malice, or willfulness, may be assessed against the employer who, as here, is personally without fault. The Supreme Court of Alabama has repeatedly ruled that the statute is aimed at the prevention of death by wrongful act or omission. Savannah & Memphis R. R. v. Shearer, 58 Ala. 672, 680; South and North Alabama R. R. v. Sullivan, 59 Ala. 272, 279. 'The statute is remedial, and not penal, and was designed as well to give a right of action where none existed before, as to 'prevent homicides,' and the action given is purely civil in its nature for the redress of private, and not public wrongs.' Southern Ry. v. Bush, 122 Ala. 470, 489, 26 So. 168, 174. In defining the scope of the act, the state court has pointed out that the extent of the culpability and the amount of the verdict are for the jury and that its finding is not to be disturbed unless the verdict

Page 115

is 'induced or reached on account of prejudice, passion, or other improper motive or cause.' Mobile Electric Co. v. Fritz, 200 Ala. 692, 693, 77 So. 235, 236. The case was argued here on the assumption that its scope was thus limited and we so interpret the statute. Its constitutionality has been upheld by both state and federal courts. Richmond & Danville R. R. v. Freeman, supra; U. S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Sullivan (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 794.

The objections now urged to a new form of vicarious liability were considered and...