Emison v. Wylam Ice Cream Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The American decisions seem to be unanimous in holding that “where there is neither express nor implied authority given a servant to employ another to perform or to assist him in the performance of his work, or a subsequent ratification by his employer of such employment, the relation of master and servant between the employer and one so employed by his servant, does not exist, and he is not liable for the negligent acts of the latter under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” 39 Corp Jur. 1272, § 1459, citing numerous cases, among others, Thyssen v. Davenport Ice, etc., Co., 134 Iowa, 749,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Geiss v. Twin City Taxicab Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. HayesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Haluptzok v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Hollidge v. DuncanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Bank of Cal. v. W. Union Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1877
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Plunkett v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Gibbons v. NaritokaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Walker v. StephensSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- First Nat. Bank of Dothan v. SandersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.