Hill v. Decatur Ice & Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
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
- Kish v. California State Automobile Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Hartnett v. GryzmishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Nussbaum v. Traung Label & Lithograph Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
- Snyder v. EriksenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1921
- 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
- Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Stevens v. Deaton Truck Line, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Smith v. Brown-Service Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Bell v. MartinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
- Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1950
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.