Thomas v. Poole
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Judge.
We elect to consider initially whether the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff had no claim against the defendant corporation upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior the master, or employer, is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of his servant, or employee, while acting as such and within the “scope of his employment.” Jackson v. Mauney, 260 N.C. 388, 132 S.E. 2d 899 (1963); Rollison v. Hicks, 233 N.C. 99, 63 S.E. 2d 190 (1951); Gillis v. A & P Tea Co., 223 N.C. 470, 27 S.E. 2d 283 (1943); 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant §…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rollison v. HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Scrivner v. Boise Payette Lumber Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1928
- Gillis v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- American Railway Express Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Norman v. . PorterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gordon v. GarnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
- Lumsden Ex Rel. Estate of Lumsden v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 2008
- Harris v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Cassell v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- Harris v. MillerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991