WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. HILL

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 6858.

Attorney(S)

Gerry Cabaniss, of Birmingham, Ala., and Geo. P. Cooper, of Huntsville, Ala., for appellant. M.U. Griffin and Earle R. Ford, both of Huntsville, Ala., for appellee.

Judges

Nathan Philemon Bryan

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Louise B. Hill sued the Western Union Telegraph Company seeking damages for an alleged assault committed by the manager of the company's Huntsville, Alabama office. The assault claim arose after Hill visited the office to request repair of an electric clock maintained by the defendant at her husband's store. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Hill, and the defendant appealed the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict in its favor.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendant, Western Union Telegraph Company, is liable for an assault committed by its office manager.
Whether the assault was committed within the scope of the manager’s employment, thereby making the employer liable.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant based on the connection between the assault and the manager’s duties.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hardeman v. Williams, 150 Ala. 415, 43 So. 726, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 653	Employer liability for acts of servant committed within scope of employment; no liability if act unrelated to duties.	Used to establish that the employer is not liable because the assault did not arise from or relate to the manager’s employment duties.
Evers v. Krouse, 70 N.J. Law, 653, 58 A. 181, 66 L.R.A. 592	Same principle regarding employer liability for servant’s wrongful acts within scope of employment.	Supported the court's conclusion that the assault was outside the scope of employment and thus no liability attached to the employer.
3 Cooley on Torts (4th Ed.) §§ 391, 396	Legal doctrine on employer liability for torts committed by employees.	Referenced to clarify the limits of employer liability for employee misconduct.
18 R.C.L. 795 et seq.	Restatement of law on employer responsibility for acts of employees.	Used to support the delineation between acts within and outside the scope of employment.
5 C.J. 617	Definition and elements of assault in tort law.	Clarified that mere words do not constitute assault, but a technical assault was assumed for analysis.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that mere words, no matter how insulting, do not constitute an assault. However, it accepted that a technical assault occurred because the manager's hands came close enough to the plaintiff to have touched her but for her jumping back. The critical legal question was whether the assault was committed within the scope of the manager’s employment, which would render the employer liable.

The court cited established legal principles that an employer is liable for wrongful acts of an employee if committed in pursuit of the employer’s business, even if done improperly. Conversely, if the act has no connection to the employee’s duties, the employer is not liable. Applying these principles, the court found that the manager’s assault was unrelated to his duties and did not arise from his employment. The manager’s proposition to the plaintiff was not a condition for repairing the clock, and the assault was a personal act unconnected to the business.

Because the assault was outside the scope of employment, the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this legal analysis.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

The court held that the Western Union Telegraph Company is not liable for the assault committed by its office manager because the assault was not within the scope of his employment. The direct effect is that the plaintiff’s judgment is overturned, and the case must proceed without holding the employer liable for the manager’s personal misconduct. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding employer liability for employee torts.

Show full summary ...

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. HILL.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

Louise B. Hill sued and recovered judgment against the Western Union Telegraph Company for damages for an assault alleged to have been committed upon her by the manager of that company's office at Huntsville, Ala. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict in its favor.

Plaintiff's husband had in his store, where she worked, an electric clock maintained by defendant. Plaintiff testified that the clock was not keeping correct time; that she went to the company's office half a block away from her husband's store to request Sapp, the manager of the office, to have the clock fixed; that, when she entered, Sapp, who appeared to her to be somewhat intoxicated, was standing behind the counter, and, when she asked him about fixing the clock, he said: "If you will come behind the counter and let me love and pet you I will fix your clock. With that he reached for me." She later said, on direct examination, that Sapp's language was: "Come behind the counter and let me love and pet you." She further testified that his hands came within an inch or two of her and would have touched her except for the fact that she jumped back out of the way.

Mere words, however provoking or insulting, do not constitute an assault. 5 C.J. 617. It may be assumed that there was a technical assault which would have been completed if the plaintiff had not jumped back out of the manager's reach. But in our opinion the defendant is not liable, and for the reason that its manager in committing the assault was not acting within the scope of his employment. If an assault be committed by a servant while he is in pursuit of his master's business, although in a wrong or even forbidden way, the master is nevertheless liable. But, if the assault does not spring from, and has no connection with, the servant's duties, the master is not liable. Hardeman v. Williams, 150 Ala. 415, 43 So. 726, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 653; Evers v. Krouse, 70 N.J. Law, 653, 58 A. 181, 66 L.R.A. 592; 3 Cooley on Torts (4th Ed.) §§ 391, 396; 18 R.C.L. 795 et seq. The District Judge fully recognized this principle of law, and stated it correctly to the jury, but in applying it he authorized the jury to find for plaintiff on the theory that defendant's manager would agree to have the electric clock repaired only upon condition that plaintiff would yield to his insulting proposal, during the making of which the assault occurred. In our opinion, the office manager was not imposing a condition upon compliance with which only he would have the clock repaired. Plaintiff, it is true, at first attributed to him language which was conditional in form, though not in substance. Even if Sapp made use of that language, it is apparent that he was not thinking about, or referring to, the clock in the store; and this is shown more conclusively by plaintiff's subsequent testimony as to what he said, in which she does not claim that he made any reference to the clock, but simply, without qualification or condition, asked her to come behind the counter and submit to his caresses. Taking plaintiff's testimony and construing it as a whole, it fails to show that the assault sprang from, or was in any way connected with, Sapp's employment. It follows that it was error to refuse defendant's request for the peremptory instruction.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.