Seybold v. Eisle
Decision Date | 14 February 1912 |
Citation | 134 N.W. 578,154 Iowa 128 |
Parties | SEYBOLD v. EISLE. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Monona County; Wm. Hutchinson, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages caused by a fire set out by defendant's agents. Trial to a jury, directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.Miles W. Newby, for appellant.
J. W. Anderson, for appellee.
In the latter part of September of the year 1909 defendant entered into a contract with one Craven to do some plowing for the latter upon his farm in Monona county. The plowing was to be done with a gasoline engine plow, and for so much per acre. To assist in running the plow and engine, defendant employed two men, one named Butcher and the other named Nelson. These men were given charge of the engine and plow, and directed to do the work. The field in which they were to work was covered with tall grass and weeds which had grown up because of lack of cultivation during previous years, and the subject of burning this grass came up between defendant and Craven the day the men were set to work. The exact nature of the conversation had at this time we shall refer to later. After this talk, several furrows were plowed on the south side of the field as a fireguard. The men employed by defendant were left in charge of the engine and plow, and they proceeded with the plowing for a day or two, when the man in charge of the engine, to wit, Butcher, for some purpose not made clear from the testimony, stopped the machine, went a short distance from it, and set fire to the grass and weeds, near the south side and west end of the field, ran the engine to the north of the fire, left it, and he, with his companion went to a nearby town. There was a high wind blowing from the northwest, and this carried the fire to the south and east, where it escaped from the field which was being plowed, passed on to plaintiff's land, and finally set fire to some stacks of hay which were totally destroyed. This action was brought to recover damages for the destruction of the hay. After all the testimony was adduced, the trial court, upon motion, directed a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
[1] It is admitted that defendant was an independent contractor, and that Craven, the owner of the land, is not responsible for the damages done. It is also conceded that the man who set out the fire and the men in charge of the engine and plow were defendant's agents and servants, and that these agents and servants were negligent in setting out the fire, or that a jury would have been warranted in finding them negligent. It is also admitted that there is no testimony showing that defendant expressly directed his servants to set out the fire. It is apparent, then, that the only question in the case is this, Was there enough testimony to take the case to the jury upon the theory that these servants had implied authority to set out the fire, or that the setting out of the fire was fairly within the scope of their employment?
The general rule with reference to the liability of the master for the acts of his servant is well understood, but its application to concrete cases has been difficult. The general rule as stated in Lewis v. Schultz, 98 Iowa, 341, 67 N. W. 266, is as follows: Again in Healy v. Johnson, 127 Iowa, 226, 103 N. W. 94, we said: In Morier v. St. Paul R. R., 31 Minn. 351, 17 N. W. 952, 47 Am. Rep. 793, the court of that state announced the rule as follows: In Turberville v. Stamp, Lord Raym. 264, 1 Salk. 13, the defendant's servants so negligently kept a fire lighted in his field that it extended to and consumed the heath of the plaintiff. The defendant was held liable to an action for the injury, and Lord Holt observed: “If the defendant's servant kindled the fire in the way of husbandry and proper for his employment, though he had no express command of his master, yet his master shall be liable to an action for damage done to another by the fire, for it shall be intended that the servant had authority from his master; it being for his master's benefit.”
In Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 14 L. Ed. 502, the Supreme Court of the United States said: ”
Again in Howe v. Newmarch, 12 Allen, 49, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts announced this rule: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenstein v. Bernhard & Turner Auto. Co.
...instruction of the master. Yates v. Squires, 19 Iowa, 26, 87 Am. Dec. 418;Lewis v. Schultz, 98 Iowa, 341, 67 N. W. 266;Seybold v. Eisle, 154 Iowa, 128, 134 N. W. 578, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 1097;Nesbit v. Chicago, Rock Island & P. Ry. Co., 163 Iowa, 39, 143 N. W. 1114. In Yates v. Squires, supra,......