Radoccia v. Goodrich Oil Co., s. 8004, 8005.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1939
• Docket Number: Nos. 8004, 8005.,s. 8004, 8005.
• Citation: 6 A.2d 746
• Parties: RADOCCIA v. GOODRICH OIL CO. (two cases).
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

6 A.2d 746

RADOCCIA

v. GOODRICH OIL CO. (two cases).

Nos. 8004, 8005.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 23, 1939.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Alberic A. Archambault, Judge.

Two actions of trespass on the case by Egidio Radoccia and by Carrie Radoccia against Goodrich Oil Company for damages resulting from injuries received by the plaintiffCarrie Radoccia in an automobile collision.Verdicts were returned for the plaintiffs in both cases, and the defendant'smotions for new trial were denied, and the defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled, and cases remitted for entry of judgment on the verdict.

Godfrey & Cambio and Gerald L. Bronstein, all of Providence, for plaintiffs.

Heltzen & Connolly and James G. Connolly, all of Providence, for defendant.

MOSS, Justice.

These are two actions of the case brought by Egidio Radoccia and his wife Carrie to recover the damages resulting to them respectively from personal injuries received by her while riding as a passenger in a motor car and caused by a collision which occurred between that car and another motor car driven by an employee of the defendant corporation.In each case the plaintiff alleged in the declaration that the collision was caused by the negligent operation of the latter car by this employee.

At a jury trial of the two cases together in the superior court, more than four years after the accident, verdicts were returned in favor of the plaintiffs; and later the trial justice denied motions filed by the defendant for new trials and based on the grounds that the verdicts were against the law and that they were against the evidence.The cases are now before us on bills of exceptions by the defendant, setting forth exceptions to the denial of these motions, to the denial of motions that verdicts be directed for the defendant, to certain portions of the charge to the jury, and, in the wife's case, to the submission of certain questions to the jury for special findings.The exceptions to portions of the charge to the jury have been abandoned.The nature of the cases and the issues involved in them are such that we need to discuss only the exceptions pressed in the case of the wife.

The defendant does not contend that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.It does contend that the jury could not reasonably find that the collision was caused by the negligence of its driver, Rowan, in the operation of the automobile which he was driving at the time, about business of the defendant.But we are convinced, from an examination of the transcript of the testimony, that the jury were fully justified in so finding.

The evidence showed—and as to this there is no dispute—that this automobile was the property of Rowan's father, who had permitted him to use it for going to and returning from the defendant's place of business, or "plant."

It was also shown by the evidence, without contradiction, that at the time of the collision Rowan had left the plant for the day, to go to his home, but was carrying in the rumble seat of the automobile, for delivery first to a customer of the defendant, two cases containing six gallons of glycerine, valued at $4.20, which the customer had ordered from the defendant to be delivered to the customer at the latter's place of business.It is clear that it was a part of Rowan's duties, as an employee of the defendant, to make deliveries by automobile to its customers, when directed to do so by any one of certain representatives of the defendant at its plant.We are also convinced that the evidence on the subject was such as to support a finding by the jury that he was thus authorized to make the delivery in question in this case.

The verdict, then, was supported by the evidence, if the evidence was such that it would also support a finding that Rowan had express or implied authority from the defendant to use his father's automobile, a coupe, in making this delivery.We shall therefore first consider the evidence on this point.

The collision took place late in the afternoon on Armistice Day, Saturday, November 11, 1933.Rowan testified that one Crowley, who was the secretary of the manager of the plant, was the man from whom Rowan regularly took his orders for making deliveries; that Rowah and McConnell, another driver for the defendant, had been out that afternoon making deliveries with a small Chevrolet truck of the defendant; that he had taken McConnell home on this truck and then returned with it to the plant; that Crowley, who then seemed to be in charge, told him to make the delivery of the two cases of glycerine; that he, Rowan, put the cases in the truck, but found that its lights were not working; that he reported this to Crowley; that there was no other truck to use; and that Crowley told him that the customer wanted this glycerine and "wanted it bad", and to make the delivery in his own car on his way home, which Rowan proceeded to do.

McConnell, who testified for the defendant, told much the same story, except that he said that Rowan took him home in the coupe when Rowan started out to make the delivery of the glycerine, and that he said also that he didn't think Crowley was there.He testified that when Rowan and he had got back from making deliveries with the Chevrolet truck, a short time before, he found that the lights were not working; and that a man by the name of Koehler, who had general charge of deliveries, said that there was a new order for glycerine that should go out and gave him the slip for the delivery.

McConnell further testified that there were then in the back of the plant two very large General Motors tank trucks, of a kind that he had never driven and which therefore he decided not to use; that he then came back to the office but did not tell Koehler because he was not there; that he thought a Mr. Fancutt, assistant to the office manager, was there checking in some driver and that Rowan and his brother, who was also employed by the defendant, were there; that the brother said that the glycerine had to go out; that Rowan said he would rather take his own car and that he didn't think that Rowan asked anybody's permission; that he didn't think that Crowley had been at the plant since morning; and that the glycerine was put into the coupe and Rowan drove off with it, taking him along as far as his home.

Fancutt, a witness for the defendant, said that Crowley, if at the plant, would despatch the deliveries of fuel oil and glycerine, according to outlines that Koehler had made for him, and would give orders for deliveries without having to call up anybody else; that Koehler, Crowley and he alternated on Saturday afternoons at the plant; that that Saturday was Koehler's; that Crowley had that day off and he was pretty sure that Crowley wasn't...