Miller v. Teche Lines, Inc

Decision Date17 February 1936
Docket Number32194
Citation175 Miss. 351,167 So. 52
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesMILLER v. TECHE LINES, INC

Division B

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

Principal is liable for tortious acts of agent when tort has been committed in furtherance of business of principal and within scope of employment of agent.

2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

Tortious act of agent, to be within scope of his agency so as to render principal liable, must be committed in course of agent's appointed duties, or be of the same general nature as those authorized or incidental to the authorized conduct.

3. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

Incidental connection between tortious act of agent and his authorized duties must be so close and definite that the damage resulting from agent's act may be justly charged to normal risk of the business and the principal could reasonably have anticipated agent's act as probable in view of the terms of agency.

4 CARRIERS.

Where agent for motor carrier was employed as a ticket and express agent only, act of agent in shifting bus stop sign from place next to curb to center of street when the parking space was so shifted held beyond scope of his agency, so that carrier was not liable for injuries suffered by passenger when school truck collided with sign.

HON HARVEY MCGEHEE, Judge.

Circuit court of Pearl River county HON. HARVEY MCGEHEE Judge.

Action by Christine Miller against the Teche Lines, Incorporated. From an a adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Grayson B. Keaton, of Picayune, and J. M. Morse, of Poplarville, for appellant.

Every material allegation in the declaration was supported by ample testimony to carry the case to the jury, and it was error on the part of the court below to give a peremptory instruction, or to sustain a motion to exclude the evidence, as the declaration stated a cause of action and the testimony supported the declaration.

Anderson v. Telephone Co., 86 Miss. 341, 38 So. 786.

A peremptory instruction will be error unless the evidence considering it to be absolutely true discloses no legal right in the party against whom the instruction is given.

Fore v. A. & V. Ry., 87 Miss. 211, 39 So. 493, 690.

It is error to give a peremptory instruction on a point which the testimony is conflicting.

Bell v. So. Ry., 94 Miss. 440, 49 So. 120; Skipworth v. McDonald, 95 Miss. 50, 48 So. 964; Byers v. McDonald, 99 Miss. 42, 54 So. 664; Romano v. Vicksburg Ry., 39 So. 781; Bonner v. N. O. & N. E. Ry., 40 So. 65; Elledge v. Gray, 41 So. 2; Bryant v. Enochs Lbr. & Mfg. Co., 94 Miss. 454, 49 So. 113; Bowling v. Red Snapper Sauce Co., 97 Miss 53 So. 394; Dodge v. Cutrer, 101 Miss. 844, 58 So. 208; Hardy v. Masonic Benefit Assn., 103 Miss. 108, 58 So. 48; Walker v. L. N. Dantzler Lbr. Co., 103 Miss. 826, 60 So. 1013; M. & O. Ry. v. Carpenter, 104 Miss. 706, 61 So. 693; Offut v. Barrett, 106 Miss. 31, 63 So. 333; Waldrop v. Crittended Co., 107 Miss. 595, 66 So. 644; National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. De Vance, 110 Miss. 196, 70 So. 83; Jones v. Knotts, 110 Miss. 590, 70 So. 701.

The court goes still further and holds that everything must be considered as proven which the evidence established, either directly or by reasonable inference, against the party who asked for the exclusion of the evidence and a peremptory instruction.

Dean v. Brannon, 139 Miss. 312, 104 So. 175; McKinnon v. Braddock, 139 Miss. 424, 104 So. 154; Wise v. Peugh, 140 Miss. 479, 106, So. 81; N. O. & N. E. Ry. v. Jackson, 140 Miss. 375, 105 So. 770; N. O. & N. E. Ry. v. Martin, 140 Miss. 864; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. v. Nixon & Phillips, 141 Miss. 677, 105 So. 478; Yates v. Houston & Murray, 141 Miss. 881, 106 So. 110; G. & S. I. Ry. v. Hales, 140 Miss. 829, 105 So. 458.

Can a general agent for the Teche Bus Lines, who maintains their ticket office, handles their freight and express; keeps up with their schedules; when he negligently hurts someone by his official actions while performing some work for the Bus Company in securing a parking space, be held not to be the agent of the company but simply acting as the part of a volunteer ?

This question has been passed on so many times by our court and is so well grounded in the general laws that it wholly requires no citations of accounts, however, we respectfully refer to the following citations:

New Orleans, Jackson & Great Northern Ry. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395; G. & S. I. Ry. case, 139 Miss. 497, 104 So. 180; Solberg v. Schlosser, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1111.

If the Teche Lines, Inc., can escape liability for an act of their agent in this kind of a case, then it would be very easy in a case of this kind and character for the agent to claim that he was acting in his capacity as a citizen and not as general agent of the company.

Vicksburg v. Harralson, 136 Miss. 872, 101 So. 713.

Where the bus company put the sign up under authority of the city and created this nuisance, yet the bus company would be liable.

13 R. C. L., Highways, par. 262.

Private corporations or individuals who, either with or without the consent of the municipality, place or maintain obstructions in a street or highway which render it unsafe for public travel, are liable for any injuries resulting directly therefrom.

29 C. J., par. 442; 82 A. L. R. Ann., page 404; 20 L. R. A. (N. S.), page 761; Stern v. International Railroad Co., 2 A. L. R. Ann.

Our courts on many occasions have held the city agents for a railroad company, the man who, meets and comes in contact with the public, as being such an agent so as to render the company liable for his actions of omission or commission.

51 C. J., Railroads, page 1082, par. 1116.

Neither at common law nor under statute is it any defense that the railroad's servants or agents, in causing the obstruction, acted contrary to the rules or instructions of the company, provided they were acting within the scope of their employment.

Com. v. New York, etc., Ry., 112 Mass. 412; State v. Louisville Ry., 91 Tenn 445, 19 S.W. 229.

Everyone is bound by the act of his agent in and about his business, even though such agent exceeds his authority.

39 C. J., Master & Servant, pars. 1469, 1472, 1477 and 1478; Barmore v. Vicksburg Railroad Co., 85, Miss. 426, 38 So. 210; 70 L. R. A. 627; 3 Ann. Cas. 594.

Parker & Shivers, of Poplarville, and Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before this defendant could be responsible for the act of any agent in placing the bus stop sign in the said street of Poplarville, it would become responsible for the acts of its agent only upon the ground that he was in some way either actually authorized to place this sign in the street, and we say this because of the fact that there can be no question in this case of implied authority to this agent. We say this for the reason that conceding (yet not admitting) that E. H. Hyde put the bus stop sign in the center of the street, it was only one act on his part without any proof whatever of the appellee, herein, the Teche Lines, Inc., ever having any notice or knowledge of the fact that he had any connection with the placing or controlling the bus stop sign. There is no pretense made of any ratification of this act if we concede that such act occurred, so that before the appellant can recover of the appellee herein it would necessarily have to prove express authority from the bus company to E. H. Hyde to have any dealings with this bus stop sign.

The responsibility of a principal for the acts of his agents rests in all cases upon the ground that he has in some way either actually or apparently authorized or received the benefit thereof.

21 R. C. L., page 904, sec. 81.

The court held here in effect, by the sustaining of the appellee's motion for a peremptory instruction, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that E. H. Hyde was the general agent because there was no evidence of such fact. He was proven to be a special agent, ticket agent. That the town authorities had a right to and did fix the parking localities, and the parking signs. That irrespective of this question altogether, plaintiff's husband knew where the sign was; had known for a great many weeks, and neither charged nor proved that he exercised any care whatever towards seeing the sign. That the streets...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Curry & Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1939
    ... ... Miss. 756, 138 So. 405; Natchez, C. & M. R. Co. v ... Boyd, 141 Miss. 593, 107 So. 1; Miller v. Teche ... Lines, Inc., 175 Miss. 351, 167 So. 52; Hahn v. Owen, ... 176 Miss. 296, 168 So ... ...
  • Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ... ... 6 ... LaBatts' Master & Servant (2d), p. 6704; Miller v ... Teche Lines, Inc., 175 Miss. 351, 167 So. 52; Hand ... v. Industrial Life & Health Ins ... ...
  • Long v. Woollard, 43054
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1964
    ... ... Jackson, 159 Miss. 424, 132 So. 90; Gabbert v. Treadaway, 194 Miss. 435, 13 So.2d 157; Miller v. Teche Lines, Inc., 175 Miss. 351, 167 So. 52; Loper v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 166 Miss. 79, 145 ... ...
  • Oman v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 19, 1949
    ... ... v. Noppenberger, 171 Md. 378, 189 A. 434; Miller v. Teche Lines, Inc., 175 Miss. 351, 167 So. 52, 53 ...         9 In this case, ... ...
  • 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