Reece v. Ebersbach
| Decision Date | 28 September 1942 |
| Parties | REECE v. EBERSBACH et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1942.
Walter Warren, of Leesburg, for plaintiff in error.
McKay, Macfarlane, Jackson & Ferguson and Mabry, Reaves, Carlton & White, all of Tampa, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error sued for the wrongful death of her husband. She alleged the killing of her husband by one M. R. Carn; that Carn was employed by defendant in error to recover overpayments to employees; that while discharging such employment he approached deceased and a controversy arose between Carn and deceased; thereupon Carn procured a pistol and pursued deceased into the woods and killed him.
Plaintiff in error relies on Stinson et al. v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656, as authority for her cause of action. The gist of the opinion relied on is that part which is declarative of the common law; that a master is liable for the tortious act of his employee committed within the apparent scope of his employment. As pointed out in the opinion however, the determination of the question must turn upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Plaintiff in error asserts that only by taking testimony can the facts and circumstances be known. Before thus proceeding it is incumbent upon plaintiff to allege a prima facie case. The fallacy of the declaration appears from failure to charge that defendant armed Carn or had any knowledge that he was so armed. It is not alleged that defendant instructed Carn to assault deceased or ratified his wrongful act. Admitting all allegations, she has not made a case under the principles of the Stinson case. There is abundant authority that the master's liability does not arise unless the tortious act was committed as an incident to the master's business and while acting within the range of employment, or that the master directed the wrongful act or ratified same afterward. Matsuda v. Hammond, 77 Wash. 120, 137 P. 328, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 920; Wells v. Henderson Land & Lumber Co., 200 Ala. 262, 76 So. 28, L.R.A.1918A, 115; Ciarmataro v. Adams, 275 Mass. 521, 176 N.E. 610, 75 A.L.R. 1171.
An unlawful assault is not a necessary or usual method employed to collect money. See Collette v. Rebori, 107 Mo.App. 711, 82 S.W. 552.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemmons v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 191
...the two, even though the quarrel originated in the effort of the agent to collect that which was due his employer. Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805; Moskins Stores, Inc. v. DeHart, 217 Ind. 622, 29 N.E.2d 948; Hill v. McQueen, 204 Okl. 394, 230 P.2d 483, 22 A.L.R.2d 1220; Annot......
-
Collazo v. John W. Campbell Farms, 14733.
...employment or in the pursuit of his employer's business, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Michel, 120 Fla. 511, 163 So. 86; Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805; Saucer v. Willys-Overland, Inc., D.C., 49 F.2d 385; Hooper-Holmes Bureau v. Bunn, 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 102. This liability als......
-
Kennedy & Cohen, Inc. v. Allen Appliance Service, Inc.
...v. Munroe and Chambliss National Bank, 89 Fla. 242, 103 So. 609; Smith v. Texas Company, 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585; Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805; Ball v. Yates, 158 Fla. 521, 29 So.2d A trial judge has broad discretion in matters relating to discovery. Carson v. City of For......
-
Mallory v. O'Neil
...incident to or was done in the scope of the servant's or agent's employment. Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416, 94 So. 656; Reece v. Ebersbach, 152 Fla. 763, 9 So.2d 805. See also Weiss v. Jacobson, Fla., 62 So.2d 904. The appellant has not alleged sufficient facts to show that the shooting w......