88 So. 588 | Ala. | 1921
The issues presented by the pleadings will sufficiently appear in the statement of the case. The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a small boy, was invited or induced by defendant's chauffeur to ride upon the defendant's truck, which the servant was then operating in the delivery of merchandise for the defendant, and that he fell therefrom, receiving injuries as the result of the negligence of the chauffeur. The defense set up is that the chauffeur, in inviting the plaintiff to ride upon the truck, was acting without the line and scope of his authority, and without the defendant's knowledge or consent or authority, either express or implied, and without any necessity therefor. Speaking to the principle of law applicable to cases of this character, this court, in Gilliam v. S. N. A. R. Co.,
"If the agent, while acting within the range of the authority of his employment, do an act injurious to another, either through negligence, wantonness, or intention, then for such abuse of the authority conferred upon him, or implied in his employment, the master or employer is responsible in damages to the person thus injured. But if the agent go beyond the range of his employment or duties, and of his own will do an unlawful act injurious to another, the agent is liable, but the master or employer is not."
And again, in Palos Coal Co. v. Benson,
"The act must be, not only 'within the scope of his employment,' but also 'committed in the accomplishment of objects within the line of his duties, or in or about the business or duties assigned to him by his employer.' "
Many of the cases bearing upon this question, and applying the principle of respondeat superior, will be found cited in the recent cases of Wells v. Henderson Land Lbr. Co.,
We are of the opinion that the case of Powers v. Williamson,
The case of Galloway v. Perkins,
The general principle, as stated in Jones v. Strickland,
The question here presented is not new, as disclosed from the numerous cases cited in the note to Dover v. Mayes Mfg. Co.,
There is nothing in the instant case to suggest that it falls within any exception to the foregoing rule, if such exceptions exist. Our conclusion is that the trial court properly overruled the demurrers to the pleas, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.