King, Inc. v. Thomas

7 Citing cases

  1. Whittle v. United States

    328 F. Supp. 1361 (M.D. Ala. 1971)   Cited 4 times
    In Whittle the issue was with respect to the duty owed by the United States to mere trespassers who were invited by its agent, contrary to the rules of the United States.

    A servant or agent may be within the scope of his authority though he is doing his work by improper or unlawful means or in a way not authorized by the employer or even contrary to the employer's expressed directions. Hardeman v. Williams, 169 Ala. 50, 53 So. 794 (1910); Lerner Shops of Alabama v. Riddle, 231 Ala. 270, 164 So. 385 (1936); Luquire Ins. Co. v. McCalla, 244 Ala. 479, 13 So.2d 865 (1943); United States Steel Co. v. Butler, 260 Ala. 190, 69 So.2d 685; King, Inc. v. Thomas, 37 Ala. App. 244, 66 So.2d 602. A master, under Alabama law, is responsible for his servant's acts within the scope of his authority, even though the acts were done willfully or maliciously, City Delivery Co. v. Henry, 139 Ala. 161, 34 So. 389, and even though the servant's acts may constitute homicide, Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Little, 222 Ala. 605, 133 So. 710. Alabama has not adopted the rule, Restatement of Agency § 242, exempting from liability of the master any responsibility for acts done to unauthorized passengers. Hottovy v. United States, D.C., 250 F. Supp. 315.

  2. McDermott v. Hambright

    238 So. 2d 876 (Ala. 1970)   Cited 4 times
    Barring recovery for bailee of vehicle, noting that “[t]he Alabama cases and the cases of other states have applied this doctrine only where a third person was injured by the negligent driving of the incompetent.”

    "* * * The word 'proximate' adds that requirement of unbroken causation to the other requirements necessary for actionable negligence. * * * 'Proximate cause' is not necessarily the act nearest injury, but is an act which actively aided in producing injury as a direct and existing cause. — King, Inc. v. Thomas, 37 Ala. App. 244, 66 So.2d 602." Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison, 276 Ala. 338, 340, 161 So.2d 820, 822 (1964).

  3. Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Braggs

    285 Ala. 396 (Ala. 1970)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that an employee's conduct within the scope of employment "must not be impelled by motives that are wholly personal, or to gratify his own feelings or resentment"

    Atlantic Life Insurance Co. v. Stanley, 276 Ala. 642, 165 So.2d 731; Franklin v. Truck Auto Rentals, Inc., 276 Ala. 237, 160 So.2d 645; Glass v. Davison, 276 Ala. 328, 161 So.2d 811. The principal is responsible for acts of his agent done in the scope of his employment in the accomplishment of objects within line of his duties though the agent seeks to accomplish the master's business in a way not authorized by the master, unknown to him or even contrary to his express directions. Luquire Ins. Co. v. McCalla, 244 Ala. 479, 13 So.2d 865; King, Inc. v. Thomas, 37 Ala. 244, 66 So.2d 602. MADDOX, Justice.

  4. Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison

    161 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1964)   Cited 25 times

    Proximate cause involves consideration of active force, or result of active force on passive force, or of several active forces on each other. — Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 218 Ala. 566, 119 So. 610. "Proximate" means next in relation to cause and effect, and, together with the word "remote", is used to distinguish between actionable and non-actionable negligence. — Godfrey v. Vinson, 215 Ala. 166, 110 So. 13. "Proximate cause" is not necessarily the act nearest injury, but is an act which actively aided in producing injury as a direct and existing cause. — King, Inc. v. Thomas, 37 Ala. App. 244, 66 So.2d 602. It is, therefore, readily seen that the charge given by the lower court omitting any consideration of proximate cause was prejudicial error, and lightened considerably the appellees' burden of proof. And while the court in the oral charge to the jury properly instructed the jury that a recovery could be had only where the alleged injury and damages were the proximate consequence of the negligence, the error was not obviated whatsoever.

  5. Hays v. Deaton Truck Line

    264 Ala. 442 (Ala. 1956)   Cited 18 times
    In Hays v. Deaton Truck Line, 264 Ala. 442, 87 So.2d 825 (1956), the court noted that the master-servant relationship between the owner-lessor and the lessee was not changed by the owner-lessor's employment of a driver.

    Hackney v. Dudley, 216 Ala. 400, 113 So. 401; Peoples v. Seamon, 249 Ala. 284, 31 So.2d 88; Childress v. Younger, 257 Ala. 222, 58 So.2d 452; Wade v. Brisker, 233 Ala. 585, 173 So. 64; Day v. Downey, 256 Ala. 587, 56 So.2d 656. The principal is responsible for negligence of agent in scope of his employment in accomplishment of objects within line of his duties, though agent seeks to accomplish master's business in way not authorized by master, unknown to him or even sometime, contrary to express directions. Smith v. Brown Service Ins. Co., 250 Ala. 613, 35 So.2d 490; Luquire Ins. Co. v. McCalla, 244 Ala. 479, 13 So.2d 865; U.S. Steel Co. v. Butler, 260 Ala. 190, 69 So.2d 685; King, Inc., v. Thomas, 37 Ala. App. 244, 66 So.2d 602. The complaint is sufficient to make a jury question under the principle of ratification by appellees of the acts of the driver. Goldfield v. Brewbaker Motors, 36 Ala. App. 152, 54 So.2d 797; Id., 256 Ala. 383, 54 So.2d 800; Birmingham News Co. v. Birmingham Ptg. Co., 209 Ala. 403, 96 So. 336.

  6. Lackey v. Lackey

    76 So. 2d 761 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 24 times

    Rogers, Howard Redden, Birmingham, H. G. Bailey, Boaz, for appellant. The trial court is justified in giving the general charge with hypothesis at the request of the proponent on the issue of undue influence only when testimony in the case will not support any other verdict on that issue, and if there is a scintilla of evidence or any reasonable inference therefrom unfavorable to the party requesting the charge, it should be refused. Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Willingham, 29 Ala. App. 569, 199 So. 15; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Bailey, 31 Ala. App. 275, 15 So.2d 465; King, Inc., v. Thomas, 259 Ala. 270, 66 So.2d 602; City of Anniston v. Dempsey, 253 Ala. 597, 45 So.2d 773; Smith v. Lilley, 252 Ala. 425, 41 So.2d 175. Confidential relations, accompanied with activity of a favored beneficiary in the preparation and execution of a will, raise a presumption of undue influence and cast the burden of proof on the proponent. Raney v. Raney, 216 Ala. 30, 112 So. 313; Coghill v. Kennedy, 119 Ala. 641, 24 So. 459; Zeigler v. Coffin, 219 Ala. 586, 123 So. 22, 63 A.L.R. 942; Claburn v. Mathews, 258 Ala. 41, 61 So.2d 83. Confidential relations exist wherever confidence is reposed and accepted, and the one has it in his power, in a secret manner, for his own advantage, to sacrifice those interests of the other which he is bound in honor and good conscience to protect.

  7. O'Neal v. Flowers

    256 So. 2d 900 (Ala. Civ. App. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    Harris v. Schmaeling, 270 Ala. 547, 120 So.2d 731; Dudley v. Ala. Utilities Service Co., 225 Ala. 531, 144 So. 5; Birmingham Railway Light and Power Co. v. Seaborn, 168 Ala. 658, 53 So. 241; Ala. T N Railroad Co. v. Huggins, 205 Ala. 80, 87 So. 546. A written requested jury charge on negligence which fails to hypothesize that injury was proximately caused by such negligence is erroneous. Dudley v. Ala. Utilities Service Co., 225 Ala. 531, 144 So. 5; Brooks v. Rowell, 222 Ala. 616, 133 So. 904; McCaa v. Thomas, 207 Ala. 211, 92 So. 414; Harris v. Schmaeling, 270 Ala. 547, 120 So.2d 731. "Proximate Cause" is not necessarily the act nearest the injury, but is the act which actively aids in producing the injury as a direct and existing cause. Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison, 276 Ala. 338, 161 So.2d 820; King, Inc. v. Thomas, 37 Ala. App. 244, 66 So.2d 602; Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Holman, 273 Ala. 371, 141 So.2d 180. Cunningham, Bounds Byrd, Mobile, for appellees.