Smothers v. Welch & Company House Furnishing Company
Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
Docket Number | 25032 |
Parties | LULA SMOTHERS, Appellant, v. WELCH & COMPANY HOUSE FURNISHING COMPANY |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court; Hon. Charles B Davis, Judge.
Affirmed.
Vaughn & Garner for appellant.
The court erred in sustaining respondent's demurrer filed at the close of appellant's case, and also in overruling appellant's motion to set aside the involuntary nonsuit. Hoehl v. Wabash Railway, 119 Mo. 325; 6 Cyc. 600; 26 Cyc. 152; Noland v. Morris & Co., 248 S.W. 627; Hunter v. Rys. Co., 248 S.W. 998; Bowles v Payne, 251 S.W. 101; Folder v. Nugent Dry Goods Co., 251 S.W. 138; Glassman v. Harry, 170 S.W 403; Dwinella v. Ry. Co., 120 N.Y. 117, 8 L. R. A. 224; Hellriegel v. Dunham, 192 Mo.App. 43; Quinn v. Powers, 87 N.Y. 535, 41 Am. Rep. 392; Williams v. Koehler, 41 A.D. 426, 58 N.Y.S. 863; Sturgis v. Rys. Co., 228 S.W. 861.
Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Angert for respondent.
A master is not liable for an assault committed by a servant, not in the interest of the master's business, but for the servant's own purposes. Haehl v. Wabash Ry. Co., 119 Mo. 325; Hellriegel v. Dunham, 192 Mo.App. 43; Sturgis v. Ry. Co., 228 S.W. 861; Glassman v. Harry, 182 Mo.App. 304; Whiteaker v. Ry. Co., 252 Mo. 438; Wolf v. Terminal Railway, 282 Mo. 559.
As appellant has made no effort to comply with our Rule 15, which requires that she make "a fair and concise statement of the facts of the case without reiteration, statements of law, or argument," we adopt the statement made by respondent. It follows:
The ground of the trial court's ruling is not difficult to surmise. It was neither alleged nor shown that the defendant authorized, connived at, or ratified the act of its servant in committing the assault upon plaintiff. If it is liable therefor its liability is vicarious and arises under the rule, respondeat superior. According to that rule: "A master is responsible for injuries occasioned to third persons by any negligence or misconduct of which his servants are guilty while acting within the scope of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B.
...one could conclude that the sheriff or county themselves vicariously took part in the wrongful acts.”) Smothers v. Welch & Co. House Furnishing Co., 310 Mo. 144, 274 S.W. 678, 679 (1925) (employer not liable for attempted rape by furniture store employee); Cosgrove v. Lawrence, 214 N.J.Supe......
-
State ex rel. Gosselin v. Trimble
... ... Haehl v. Railway ... Co., 119 Mo. 339; Smothers v. Furnishing Co., ... 310 Mo. 144; Phillips v ... Yellow Cab Company, ... decided at its March term, 1930. Relator ... 559, 222 S.W. 114; Smothers v. Welch & Co., 310 Mo ... 144, 272 S.W. 678, 40 A. L ... ...
-
Oganaso v. Mellow
...and law-abiding employees. See Priest v. F. W. Woolworth Five & Ten Cent Store, 228 Mo.App. 23, 62 S.W. 2d 926; and Smothers v. Welch & Co. House Furnishing Co., supra. In case at bar there was no evidence introduced tending to sustain such a theory of liability of defendants. And so, it se......
-
Gardner v. Stout
... ... , Doing Business as Majestic Flour Mills Company, and Leslie Schroeder, Appellants No. 35023 ... employees. Smothers v. Welch & Co. House Furnishing ... Co., 310 ... ...