Smith v. Webster
| Decision Date | 12 July 1871 |
| Citation | 23 Mich. 298 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William H. H. Smith and another v. Edward Webster and another |
Heard July 7, 1871
Error to Jackson circuit.
This was an action of trespass brought by William H. H. Smith and Eugene Smith, against Edward Webster and Benjamin F. Courter in the circuit court for Jackson county, for entering upon plaintiffs' lands in Saginaw county, and cutting, and carrying away hemlock and pine trees. The judgment below was for defendants, and plaintiffs bring the case to this court by writ of error.
Judgment reversed with costs, and a new trial granted.
Johnson & Crane, for plaintiffs in error.
Conely & Sharp, for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs sued defendants in trespass, for the destruction of trees upon their lands. The alleged trespass was not committed by the defendants in person, but by others in their employ, who were engaged in cutting trees and gathering bark for defendants on their own lands, and went to plaintiff's lands, as they claim, by mistake.
The circuit court held that there was no liability in this action, unless the trespass was committed by the actual direction of defendants, or was ratified by their assent, or appropriation of the property, with knowledge of the trespass. And the court refused to charge that any wrongful act or negligence of defendants whatever could subject them to this action.
It was claimed on the argument, that the persons doing the wrong were not, in law, the servants of the defendants, but were in the position of independent contractors, for whose acts none but themselves and their immediate employer could be held liable.
The evidence will not allow any such conclusion. The men were employed in the ordinary way as laborers of defendants, to do their work subject entirely to their control and direction. The intermediate agent was an overseer and not a contractor and he, as well as the men under him, was the servant of defendants in the legal sense of that word, and fully represented them in what he did. The acts complained of were done in the regular course of their employment, and not by willful wrong. In such cases the master is bound to keep his servants within their proper bounds, and is responsible if he does not. The law contemplates that their acts are his acts, and that he is constructively present at them all. There are many cases of willful misconduct for which an employer will not be liable, because, in such cases, the wrong-doers may be regarded as having renounced his service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Flint Bd. of Hosp. Managers
...if he does not. The law contemplates that their acts are his acts, and that he is constructively present at them all. [Smith v. Webster, 23 Mich. 298, 299-300 (1871) (emphasis In other words, the principal "is only liable because the law creates a practical identity with his [agents], so th......
-
Nippa v. Botsford General Hosp.
...if he does not. The law contemplates that their acts are his acts, and that he is constructively present at them all." [Smith v. Webster, 23 Mich. 298, 299-300 (1871) (emphasis In other words, the principal "is only liable because the law creates a practical identity with his [agents], so t......
-
Al-Shimmari v. Detroit Medical Center
...with his [agents], so that he is held to have done what they have done.'" Cox, supra at 11, 651 N.W.2d 356, quoting Smith v. Webster, 23 Mich. 298, 300 (1871). This Court has also stated: "`Vicarious liability is based on a relationship between the parties, irrespective of participation, ei......
-
Garraghty v. Hartstein
...v. Eisle, 154 Iowa 128, 134 N.W. 579; Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of Columbia, 5 Wheat. 326, 5 L.Ed. 100; Wood, Mast. & S. 539; Smith v. Webster, 23 Mich. 298; Ramsden Boston & A. R. Co. 104 Mass. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 200, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 372; Pollock, Torts, 7th ed. 82-84; Mullvehill v. Bates, 31 M......