Pearson v. Great Southern Lumber Co

• Citation: 134 La. 117,63 So. 759
• Decision Date: 15 December 1913
• Docket Number: 19,695
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: PEARSON v. GREAT SOUTHERN LUMBER CO

63 So. 759

134 La. 117

PEARSON v. GREAT SOUTHERN LUMBER CO

No. 19,695

Supreme Court of Louisiana

December 15, 1913

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A corporation is liable in damages for an unlawful arrest instigated by one of its employes acting in the pursuit of an object relating to the business of his employer, and designed to be of benefit to it.

Where the electric bulbs of a corporation had been broken by unknown persons, and a watchman in the employ of the corporation causes the arrest of a person whom he suspects of having broken some of them, he is acting for the benefit of the corporation, and, if the arrest is illegal, and without probable cause, the corporation is liable to the person illegally arrested, and the fact that the arrest is actually made by some one other than the watchman, but at his instigation, does not shift the liability of the corporation.

An arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the officer arresting should not be made without an affidavit and warrant, and, where this is done without a sufficient inquiry as to the guilt of the party arrested, the person or corporation responsible for the arrest is liable in damages.

Where the person illegally arrested for an offense was at the time of its commission with the culprit, the court will consider that fact in awarding damages, and, as the conduct of the plaintiff does not recommend him to the court, an award of $ 100 damages will be held sufficient for his illegal arrest.

Ott Johnson & Ott, of Bogalusa, for appellant.

Benj. Moore Miller, of Covington, for appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX, C. J.

In this suit in which plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $ 5,000 against the defendant for false arrest and imprisonment, the facts are nearly the same as in the case of Sharp against the same defendant. On one point there is a difference in that the testimony shows that Sharp broke electric light bulbs. Although Pearson was with him late in the nighttime, as they were passing through defendant's mill, he was not seen to have broken any of the electric lights.

It is charged by defendant that these plaintiffs, instead of taking the shortest route to their homes, went out of the way to pass through the mill; that they might have passed more easily in the front than in the rear. It is also charged by defendant that of its 1,400 lights a number had been broken at previous times.

It remains that plaintiffs were not arrested because they passed through the open mill, where a few others, at any rate, sometimes passed, especially employes, nor because lights had been broken at previous times, nor because they took the long road instead of the short; they were arrested for breaking electric lights, and perpetrating malicious mischief.

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, alleged, and have sworn, that there was no cause for their arrest; they broke no lights, and Pearson swore that he did not see Sharp break any lights.

We take up for decision the question whether plaintiff was arrested without an affidavit, without a warrant, and without probable cause.

There can be no question but that plaintiffs were arrested prior to the filing of the affidavit, and it follows prior to the date of the warrant. Even the defendant does not deny that the arrest was made from one to two hours before the affidavit was made and the warrant issued.

Defendant has it that the imprisonment may have been a false imprisonment, but one for which in that case not only the defense would be liable but also McCabe, Mizell, and Dorsey, who took part in making the arrest, and afterward in preparing the affidavit, and causing a warrant to be issued; that defendant is not responsible for the acts of these officers; that, if any of the parties were wrongdoers, Dorsey (who made the arrest without a warrant) is the greatest culprit.

We think that they were all on the same plane and equally responsible. The arrest should not have been made without an affidavit and warrant. This arrest was made for the benefit of the defendant and at the instance of its night watchman, who directed that the arrest be made. They were employes serving the interest of the defendant within the scope of their employment.

In Schmidt v. N. O. Ry. & Light Co., 116 La. 311, 40 So 714, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162, the policeman arrested a passenger in error at the instance of the conductor. The court held that the conductor, and it follows the company in whose employ he was, was responsible;...