Stinson v. Prevatt

• Decision Date: 10 October 1922
• Parties: STINSON et al. v. PREVATT.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

94 So. 656

84 Fla. 416

STINSON et al. v. PREVATT.

Florida Supreme Court

October 10, 1922

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

Action by Jennie Prevatt against R. L. Stinson and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

Taylor J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Employer liable for wrongful act of employee within scope of employment. As a general rule under the principles of the common law an employer is liable in damages for the wrongful act of his employee that causes injury to another person, if the wrongful act is done while the employee is acting within the apparent scope of his authority as such employee to serve the interests of the employer, even though the wrongful act also constitutes a crime not a homicide, or was not authorized by, or was forbidden by, the employer, or was not necessary or appropriate to serve the interests of the employer, unless the wrongful act of the employee was done to accomplish his own purposes, and not to serve the interests of the employer.

Statutory liability extended to wrongful act of employee causing death. By statute the liability of an employer for the wrongs of his employee while acting as such employee is extended to cases where the wrongful act of the employee causes the death of a person.

Employer's liability for wrongful acts of employee determined by consideration of facts. Whether an employer is liable for the wrongful acts of his employee should be determined by a fair consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case guided by applicable provisions and principles of law.

Joint action maintainable against principal and agent for injury by agent. When the liability of a principal and of its agent for a tort grows out of injury caused by the wrongful act of the agent committed in his capacity as agent of the principal, a joint action against the principal and agent is not improper when sustained by appropriate allegations.

Surplus allegations in declaration not eliminated by appropriate motion may be disregarded. When a declaration states a cause of action, surplus allegations not eliminated by appropriate motion may be disregarded.

Corporation liable for agent's wrongful act causing death. Under the statute a corporation is made liable in damages for the death caused by the wrongful act of the agent, 'acting in his capacity of agent of such corporation,' although the wrongful act causing the death may 'amount in law to a felony.'

Scope of employment for jury; employer liable for agent's act in killing another to serve employer's interests. In an action for damages for wrongful death, where there is substantial evidence tending to show liability of the principal for the wrongful act of its agent in shooting and killing the decedent, it is for the jury to determine from the evidence under appropriate instructions from the court whether the agent shot the decedent maliciously in pursuit of his own purpose, or whether the agent shot and killed the decedent while acting in his capacity as agent of the principal, to serve the interests of his employer. In the first case the principal would not be liable, but in the latter case the principal would be liable in compensatory damages under the statute.

Judgment against corporation and agent for wrongful death by agent sustained. In an action against a corporation and its agent to recover damages for a wrongful death caused by the shooting and killing of the decedent by an agent of the defendant corporation, where there is evidence legally sufficient to sustain a finding that the wrongful act of the agent was committed while 'acting in his capacity of agent of the corporation,' within the meaning of the statute, though the particular act was not authorized, and it does not clearly appear that the fatal shooting was maliciously done by the agent for his own purposes, a verdict and judgment against the corporation and the agent consistent with the allegations of the declaration will not be disturbed.

Where no error in trial below, judgment not excessive affirmed. Where the charges of the court fairly presented a case to the jury, and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict which is not patently excessive in amount, and no material or harmful errors of law or procedure appear, the judgment will be affirmed.

COUNSEL

R. T. Boozer and W. H. Boozer, both of Lake City for plaintiffs in error.

Guy Gillen, of Lake City, and Stafford Caldwell, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment awarding $11,000 damages to Jennie Prevatt in an action brought by her under the statute, against R. L. Stinson and the East Coast Lumber Company, a corporation, for the death of plaintiff's husband, alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act of the defendant Stinson while acting in his capacity as agent of the defendant corporation.

As a general rule under the principles of the common law an employer is liable in damages for the wrongful act of his employee that causes injury to another person, if the wrongful act is done while the employee is acting within the apparent scope of his authority as such employee to serve the interests of the employer, even though the wrongful act also constitutes a crime not a homicide or was not authorized by, or was forbidden by, the employer, or was not necessary or appropriate to serve the interests of the employer, unless the wrongful act of the employee was done to accomplish his own purposes, and not to serve the interests of the employer. See 6 Labatt's Master & Servant (2d Ed.) §§ 2226, 2285, 2288, 2364, 2477. See, also, Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792. By statute the liability of an employer for the wrongs of his employee while acting as such employee is extended to cases where the wrongful act of the employee causes the death of a person. Sections 4960, 4961, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.

Whether an employer is liable for the wrongful acts of his employee should be determined by a fair consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case, guided by applicable provisions and principles of law.

The statute provides that----

'Whenever the death of any person in this state shall be caused by the wrongful act * * * of any agent of any corporation, acting in his capacity of agent of such corporation * * * and the act * * * is such as would, if the death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured thereby to maintain an action * * * and to recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case * * * the corporation * * * which would have been liable in damages if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages * * * notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to a felony.' Section 3145, Gen. Stats. 1906; section 4960, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.

The action may be maintained by the widow of the person killed to recover 'such damages as the party * * * entitled to sue may have sustained by reason of the death of the party killed.' Section 3146, Gen. Stats. 1906; section 4961, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.

The liability of a corporation in damages under the statute and the rule respondeat superior for a death of a person caused by the wrongful act of an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of the authority conferred by the employer corporation was recognized in Varnes v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 80 Fla. 624, 86 So. 433. But in that case the plaintiff wholly failed to prove the essential allegation that the death was caused by the employee 'while acting within the scope of his authority' as such employee. See, also, Nolan v. Moore, 81 Fla. 600, 88 So. 601; Forsyth v. Perry, 5 Fla. 337; Kelly v. Wallace, 6 Fla. 690.

The third amended declaration contained four counts, one of which is as follows:

'For that heretofore, to wit, on the 15th day of April, 1917, the plaintiff was then the wife of James Prevatt, now deceased, then of Columbia county, Fla., and in life and being, and the defendant East Coast Lumber Company, a corporation, was a sawmill company, and owned and operated a certain large plant for its business of sawing logs and manufacturing lumber and lumber products, together with other mills and appliances for the purpose of its business situated at Watertown, Columbia county, Fla., and also owned and operated a certain labor camp for the accommodation of its laborers at which was then encamped a large number of its laborers under contract and used by it for the purpose of procuring logs to be sawed into lumber at its said sawmill in said county, which was then in the particular aforesaid an incident of its said business, and the defendant R. L. Stinson was one of its agents and employees, used as such in its said business as what is called a quarter boss at the said labor camp; that among his duties as such agent and employee at the said labor camp was that of protecting the business and interests of his said employer from outside influences or interference, such as from persons going or being there to entice or hire away its said laborers located there, or being there and suspected of enticing or hiring its said laborers, and that said duties involved the arresting and taking into custody of persons at said camp enticing and hiring from it the laborers and employees at said camp of the defendant East Coast Lumber Company, or being there suspected of so enticing or hiring away such laborers, for which purpose he was armed with deadly weapons with the sanction of his employer, and he was then and there also with the sanction of the East Coast Lumber Company,

...