Legal Opinion
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Higginbotham
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided March 19, 1936No. 6 Div. 904PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, Justice.
The several counts of the complaint on which the case was submitted to the jury are in case. Though count 5 claims damages “for a trespass by the agents or servants of the defendant while acting within the line and scope of their employment,” nevertheless the liability of the defendant, if liable at all, is purely consequential. It is not charged with participating in the damnifying act. Its liability rests 'upon the doctrine respondeat superior. Southern Railway Co. v. Hanby, 166 Ala. 641, 52 So. 334.
The injury alleged and damages claimed are not alleged to be the proximate…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. HanbySupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Alabama Power Co. v. StringfellowSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Central Iron & Coal Co. v. VandenheukSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Agricola FurnaceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
- Cooper v. WattsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
- Employers Insurance Co. of Alabama, Inc. v. RivesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
- State v. DunlapSupreme Court of Alabama · 1966
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.