Robinson v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Guy A. Magruder, Jr., of Terrell, Hess, Van Osdol & Magruder, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant
• Citation: Robinson v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 154 F.Supp. 626 (W.D. Mo. 1957)
• Decision Date: 27 September 1957
• Docket Number: No. 10425.,10425.
• Parties: B. D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.

154 F. Supp. 626

B. D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.

No. 10425.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

September 27, 1957.

Fred J. Freel, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Guy A. Magruder, Jr., of Terrell, Hess, Van Osdol & Magruder, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

R. JASPER SMITH, District Judge.

This is a suit for false imprisonment. On September 11, 1956, this action was stayed pending a determination by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit of the appeal of plaintiff's prior claim for malicious prosecution against this defendant. The history of this prior suit between the same parties is treated fully in my Memorandum and Order of September 11, 1956. Robinson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company, D.C., 144 F.Supp. 713.

On April 10, 1957, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the prior suit, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff "did not carry the burden required of him under Missouri law to make out a case of malicious prosecution." Chicago Great Western Railroad Company v. Robinson, 8 Cir., 243 F.2d 389, 391.

Relying on this decision, defendant moves for summary judgment in its favor, on the grounds that a material and conclusive issue, namely, the non-liability of this defendant for the acts of its alleged agents and servants in the matter of which plaintiff complains, has been determined conclusively in defendant's favor by the Court of Appeals in an action involving the same facts and the same parties as in this action, and plaintiff is estopped collaterally from denying the determination.

A study of the appellate court's decision discloses that their adjudication rests wholly upon the issue of the scope of the employment of the two alleged agents, Minor and Johnson, and their capacity, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, to bind their principal, the defendant railway. The Court of Appeals found that the conduct of the two men was beyond the scope of their agency, and concluded, therefore, that defendant was not liable for the consequences of their acts. Judge Donovan, speaking for the Court, said:

"Proof of the presence or absence of one or more of said essentials (for a malicious prosecution action) is made unnecessary by reason of lack of authority in either Johnson or Minor to initiate prosecution of the instant case. The issue of the scope and authority of Minor and Johnson to instigate the prosecution

...