Legal Opinion
Ford v. Mitchell
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 20, 1935No. 24033PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.
1. It is not essential to the liability of a master for the wilful and intentional tort of a servant that the servant shall have acted at the command of the master or with the master’s consent. The master is liable if a tort is committed by the servant in the course of the servant’s employment while the servant is acting within the scope of his authority and in the prosecution of the master’s business. Columbus Railroad Co. v. Woolfolk, 128 Ga. 631 (3) (58 S. E. 152, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1136, 119 Am. St. R. 404) ; Savannah Electric Co. v. McCants, 130 Ga. 741, 747 (61 S. E. 713) ; White v.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gomez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Columbus Railroad v. WoolfolkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Savannah Electric Co. v. McCantsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- White v. American Security Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
3Cited by8 opinions
- Conney v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Clark v. Security Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1998
- Prince v. BrickellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Brown v. Union Bus CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Pope v. Seaboard Air Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.