Legal Opinion

Hill v. Decatur Ice & Coal Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 21, 1929No. 8 Div. 34PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDERSON, C: -J.

To recover against the defendant upon the theory of respondeat superior, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish two distinct facts: First, the status of master and servant; and, second, that the act done was within the scope of the servant’s employment.

The relation of master and servant between the defendant and Kloepfer was established ; that is, he was an engineer at the defendant’s plant. So, the question arises: Was he, when driving the car and injuring the plaintiff, acting within the scope of his employment? The undisputed evidence denies any contractual…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kish v. California State Automobile Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Hartnett v. GryzmishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  3. Nussbaum v. Traung Label & Lithograph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
  4. Snyder v. EriksenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
  5. Depue v. George D. Salmon Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1919

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
  2. Stevens v. Deaton Truck Line, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  3. Smith v. Brown-Service Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1948
  4. Bell v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
  5. Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API