Action on the case by appellee against appellant to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted on the plaintiff by the “initiating team” of “Palmetta Camp No. 52,” Woodmen of the World, located at Prаtt City, Ala. Southern Railway Co. v. Hanby,
The case went to the jury on counts A and B of the complaint as amended, and the plea’of the general- issue.
The evidence offered by the plaintiff goes to show that the plaintiff was solicited to join the defendant order and take insurance therein by оne D. B. Mars, an agent of the defendant who had authority to solicit and take such applications; that said “Palmetta Camp No. 52” was organized and existed under a charter issued by the defendant; that it was necessary for the plaintiff to be initiated into the оrder to maintain his status as an insured member; that defendant issued the certificate of insurаnce and received the premiums and assessments made against such insured members, thrоugh the local camp; that said defendant, “Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen оf the World,” was the supreme legislative body of said order and prescribed the ritualistic work for the local camps and furnished rituals for use in the work of initiating candidates fоr membership into the order.
The evidence further goes to show that candidates аre prepared for initiation into the order by being blindfolded and are then conduсted through the initiation from post to post by some member of the “work team,” and during the initiation the obligations are administered and the secret work of the order disclosed to the candidate; that plaintiff was so blindfolded and in the course of the initiation hе received a blow, inflicted by one of said team or through their negligence, on thе end of his spine, causing an abscess which necessitated a surgical operаtion, and from which he suffered, and was caused to lose time from his work.
The evidencе offered by the defendant tended to show that the plaintiff was not assaulted or otherwise injured during the initiation.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff from which the defendаnt has appealed.
Appellant’s first contention is, that said local camр, in conducting the initiation, was not its agent or servant, and it is not responsible for the -willful or wanton conduct of the initiating agency, or for its negligence, and especially sо if the local camp deviated from the prescribed ritualistic work; that for an injury sо inflicted the persons guilty are solely responsible. Otherwise stated, in such circumstanсes the doctrine respondeat superior is without application.
These questions had full consideration in Supreme Lodge Loyal Order of Moose v. Kenny,
The stated contention is the basis for the appellant’s insistence that it was entitled to the affirmative charge. This charge was refused without error.
Allowing all reasonablе presumption of the correctness of the verdict, it cannot be affirmed that thе preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decidеd that it is wrong and unjust. Cobb v. Malone & Collins,
We find nothing in the several rulings of the court in respect to аrgument by plaintiff’s counsel of which appellant has the right to complain. The argument related to matters in evidence and the law applicable thereto. Cross v. State,
So far as appears, the defendant did not except to that part of the court’s oral charge quoted in assignment of error 22. However, inasmuch as the court was there dealing with' punitive damages, the imposition of which, in cases not undеr the homicide act, rests in the sound discretion of the jury, we find no fault with this part of the court’s charge. Birming
*543
ham Electric Co. v. Shephard,
We have examined the several assignments of error predicatеd on rulings in the admission and exclusion of evidence, and we find no error therein.
The reсord and proceeding of the circuit court appear to be free from error.
Affirmed.