State v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1892 |
| Parties | STATE v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Gibson county; J. R. BOND, Judge.
The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company was convicted of a public nuisance, and appeals. Affirmed.
W. I. McFarland and McCorry & Bond, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
A train of cars was permitted to stand across a public country road for an unreasonable length of time, there-by impeding the use of the road by the traveling public. The corporation was indicted, and found guilty of a public nuisance, and fined in the sum of $50. Before the trial it was admitted by the state that, under the rules and regulations of the company, its employes in charge of its trains were prohibited from permitting trains to stand across a public road in such manner as to obstruct travel for more than five minutes. In the instance relied upon by the state the train had been permitted to stand across a public road for from 20 to 30 minutes. The circuit judge instructed the jury that the fact that this obstruction was for a longer time than permitted by its rules and instructions was no defense against the indictment. This is assigned as error. That railway corporations are liable to indictment for obstructing a public highway has been long settled. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. State, 3 Head. 523. Being a corporation, it necessarily acts only through its agents. If the obstruction is the act of its agents, it is the act of the corporation provided the agent did the act in the course and scope of his duty as an agent. It is immaterial that the agent was, by the rules of the company, instructed not to permit such obstruction to continue for a time deemed by the corporation to be unreasonable. If such agent disobey the reasonable requirement of the corporation, it becomes liable for the nuisance, because the agent was within the scope of his duty in operating the train and in stopping it across a public road. This principle is necessary to be enforced in regard to acts of misfeasance by corporations of this character. Otherwise the public would be required to look alone to subordinates, in general unknown and irresponsible. 2 Wood, Ry. Law, pp. 1383, 1384, and authorities cited.
Affirm the judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regan v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.
...government would be compelled to look alone to subordinates, generally unknown and not infrequently irresponsible. State v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 91 Tenn. 445, 19 S.W. 229. This rule has been universally applied in cases involving the acts of agents of railroads and corporations generally......
-
United States v. Taylor
...business is to be performed does not of itself constitute a departure from the servant's scope of employment. State v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1892, 91 Tenn. 445, 19 S. W. 229; Eichengreen v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1896, 96 Tenn. 229, 34 S.W. 219, 31 L.R.A. 702; Boswell v. Barnum & Bailey,......
-
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. People ex rel. Yancey
...knew of, participated in, or approved such wrongful act of the agent. The views thus expressed find support in State v. L., etc., Railroad Co., 91 Tenn. 445, 19 S. W. 229, 7 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 847, and Pierce on Railroads, pp. 277, 278, and are illustrated in the decisions ......
-
Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People
... ... of law. O'Sullivan v. People, 144 Ill. 604, 32 N.E. 192, ... 20 L.R.A. 143; Town of Carrollton v. Rhomberg, 78 Mo. 547; ... March v. State, 5 Tex. App. 450; Herrington v. State, 53 Ga ... 552; U.S. v. De Goer (D. C.) 38 F. 80; Schreiber v ... Sharpless, 110 U.S. 76, 3 S.Ct. 423, 28 ... ...
-
Punishing Corporations: the Food-chain Schizophrenia in Punitive Damages and Criminal Law
...Hill v. USA Truck, Inc., No. 8:06-CV-1010-GRA, 2007 WL 1574545, at *1-*2 (D.S.C May 30, 2007). 126. State v. Louisville and N. R.R. Co., 19 S.W. 229, 229 (Tenn. 1892). 127. Odom v. Gray, 508 S.W.2d 526, 533 (Tenn. 1974). 128. COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-1-606(1)(b) (2007) (mandating that business......