DOCSLIB.ORG

Bar Practice Course

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bar Practice Course Bar Practice Course 204 CLR 333] SCOTT v DAVIS 333 SCOTT AND OTHERS ........................................... APPELLANTS; PLAINTIFFS, AND DAVIS ....................................................................... RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT, [2000] HCA 52 ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Negligence — Vicarious liability — Aeroplane — Pilot asked by owner to take HC OF A temporary control without reward in owner’s absence — Injury to 2000 passenger — Whether owner of plane vicariously liable for pilot’s March 3; negligence. Oct 5 During a birthday party held at a country property, the owner of a two- 2000 seater aeroplane allowed it to be used for a joy-ride. The owner asked a Gleeson CJ, licensed pilot, who was a guest at the party, to fly the plane. There was McHugh, no relationship of master and servant or principal and agent between the Gummow, Hayne and owner and the pilot on contractually agreed terms. The plane crashed Callinan JJ through the negligence of the pilot, causing serious injury to a child who was a passenger in it and nervous shock to his parents. Held, by Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, McHugh J dissenting, that the owner was not vicariously liable for the pilot’s negligence, even though the pilot had taken the passenger on a joy-ride at the owner’s request, because the owner had not retained the direction and control of the plane. Soblusky v Egan (1960) 103 CLR 215, considered and distinguished. Morgans v Launchbury [1973] AC 127, distinguished. Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court): Davis v Scott (1998) 71 SASR 361, affirmed. APPEAL from the Supreme Court of South Australia. Geoffrey Arthur Davis owned a number of vintage aeroplanes, which he kept at his rural property in the Barossa Valley in South Australia. On 29 July 1990, Davis and his wife held a twenty-first birthday party for their daughter. Travis Kane Scott, who was then eleven years of age, attended with his parents. Travis’ father asked Davis whether Travis could have a joy-ride in one of the planes, a 1946 Aeronca. Davis replied that he would consider the request and later asked his wife to approach another guest to see whether he would take Travis on a joy-ride. The guest, who was a licensed pilot, agreed to do so. The pilot’s negligence caused him to lose control of the plane, which stalled and crashed while being turned at low speed. The Vol: 204. File: 1778. Start page 333 CLR 3rd run _ 12 Sep 2003 Last Footnote No: XXX 334 COMMONWEALTH LAW REPORTS [2000 pilot was killed and Travis was seriously injured. Travis’ parents, who witnessed the crash and attended the scene after Travis had been pulled free of the wreckage, suffered nervous shock. They commenced proceedings for negligence against Davis and his wife in the Magistrates’ Court. Those proceedings were transferred to the District Court of South Australia, where they were heard together with an action commenced by Travis (by his father as next friend) against Davis and his wife. It was alleged that Davis and his wife were vicariously liable for the negligence of the pilot. Judge Bright found no relationship of master and servant or of principal and agent on contractually agreed terms. However, he found that, having lent the plane to the pilot, Davis was responsible for his negligence. The claims against Mrs Davis were dismissed. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Doyle CJ and Nyland J, Millhouse J dissenting) allowed an appeal by Davis, set aside a judgment awarding damages and substituted a judgment dismissing the actions (1). The Scotts appealed to the High Court from the judgment of the Full Court by special leave granted by McHugh and Callinan JJ. The respondent filed a notice of contention based upon the ground that the Full Court erred in failing to determine that if the doctrine of vicarious liability discussed in Morgans v Launchbury (2) applied to aeroplanes, Davis was not liable having regard to the fact that the carriage of Travis in the plane was not performed for the purpose and/or benefit or sufficient purpose or benefit of Davis, or that the dominant purpose of the use of the plane, in carrying Travis, was to satisfy the request of his parents that he be taken for a pleasure flight. W J N Wells QC (with him A L Tokley), for the appellants. The owner of the plane is vicariously liable for the pilot’s negligence because he falls within the scope of Morgans v Launchbury (3),in which the vicarious liability of an owner of a chattel (there, a motor vehicle) for the negligence of a user acting for the owner’s purposes was recognised. The principle recognised in Morgans v Launchbury (4) has been applied in numerous common law jurisdictions (5). The (1) Davis v Scott (1998) 71 SASR 361. (2) [1973] AC 127. (3) [1973] AC 127. (4) [1973] AC 127. (5) eg, Mortess v Fry [1928] SASR 60; Hewitt v Bonvin [1940] 1 KB 188; Ormrod v Crosville Motors Services [1953] 1 WLR 1120; [1953] 2 All ER 753; Pennell v O’Callaghan [1954] VLR 320; Manawatu County v Rowe [1956] NZLR 78; Comino v Lynch and British Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (1960) 54 QJPR 16; Norton v Canadian Pacific Steamships Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1057; [1961] 2 All ER 785; Gosson Industries Pty Ltd v Jordan [1965] NSWR 687; Fettke v Bogovic [1964] SASR 119; Pearce v Pignitter [1963] Tas SR 187; Doyle v Pick and Rickwood [1965] WAR 95; Carberry v Davies [1968] 1 WLR 1103; [1968] 2 All ER 817; Jennings v Hannon [No 2] (1969) 71 SR (NSW) 226; Rambarran v Gurrucharran [1970] 1 WLR 556; [1970] 1 All ER 749; Kirth v Tyrrell [1971] Qd R 453; Milkovits v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 20 FLR 311; Kelly v Vol: 204. File: 1778. Start page 333 CLR 3rd run _ 12 Sep 2003 Last Footnote No: XXX 204 CLR 333] SCOTT v DAVIS 335 relationship between a user of a chattel who commits a tort and the owner or bailee of that chattel attracts the same considerations that underlie the vicarious liability of an employer (6). Those consider- ations are first the ability to take control. [He referred to Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (7); Glass, McHugh & Douglas, The Liability of Employers in Damages for Personal Injury (8); Keeler, ‘‘Driving agents: to vicarious liability for (some) family and friendly assistance’’ (9); Chandler v Broughton (10); Booth v Mister (11); and Wheatley v Patrick (12).] Secondly, there must be an ability to direct management of the chattel (13). Where power is delegated, continued control is implied by the power or right to control the chattel (14).By virtue of a contract of employment, an employer has the right to direct and control the manner of the execution of tasks by an employee. The tortious acts of an employee for which an employer is liable are only those that are committed in furtherance of, or whilst going about, the employer’s business, or are facilitated by going about the employer’s business. [He referred to the Holmes-Pollock Letters 1874-1932 (15); Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence & Ethics (16); Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (17); Holdsworth, History of English Law (18); Wigmore, ‘‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: its History’’, Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (19); Cornish & Clark, Law and Society in England 1750-1950 (20); Blackstone, Commen- taries on the Law of England (21); Glass, McHugh & Douglas, The Liability of Employers in Damages for Personal Injury (22); and (5) cont Lombard Motor Co [1974] IR 142 at 144; Moynihan v Moynihan [1975] IR 192; Manawatu County v Rowe [1956] NZLR 78; Ansin v R & D Evans Ltd [1982] 1 NZLR 184; Harris v Van Spijk [1986] 1 NZLR 275; Gramak Ltd v O’Connor (1973) 41 DLR (3d) 14 at 20-21; Rand v Bomac Construction Ltd (1988) 55 DLR (4th) 467; Pawlak v Doucette [1985] 2 WWR 588. (6) Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967), pp 15-28; Wigmore, ‘‘Responsibility for Tortious Acts: its History’’, Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (1909), vol 3, p 474. (7) (1967), pp 125-126. (8) 2nd ed (1979), chs 5, 6. (9) Torts Law Journal, vol 8 (2000) 41, at p 43. (10) (1832) 1 C&M 29 [149 ER 301]. (11) (1835) 7 Car&P66[173 ER 30]. (12) (1837) 2M&W650;6LJEx193[150 ER 917]. (13) Samson v Aitchison [1912] AC 844. (14) Samson v Aitchison [1912] AC 844; Soblusky v Egan (1960) 103 CLR 215; Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 at 692. (15) (1941), vol 1, p 233. (16) (1882), Employer’s Liability, p 114 (17) (1967), Pts II, VII. (18) vol 8 (1966 rep), pp 472-482. (19) (1909), vol 3, p 474. (20) (1989), p 489. (21) (1844) vol I, p 429. (22) 2nd ed (1979), chs 5, 6. Vol: 204. File: 1778. Start page 333 CLR 3rd run _ 12 Sep 2003 Last Footnote No: XXX 336 COMMONWEALTH LAW REPORTS [2000 Keeler, ‘‘Driving agents: to vicarious liability for (some) family and friendly assistance’’ (23).] Finally, a bailment on terms gives rise to legal rights and obligations as does a contract (24). Vicarious liability arises when an owner or bailee surrenders possession of the chattel to a delegate to do the bidding of the owner or bailee, the owner or bailee exercising power of control over the chattel by dictating the terms on which the user is to have the use of the chattel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Critique of Vicarious Liability in the Medical Malpractice Context
    THE BUCK STOPS WHERE? A CRITIQUE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CONTEXT C. J. COLWELL† In Canadian tort law, liability is almost always linked to some notion of fault, save for a few well-established exceptions. By far the most common exception is vicarious liability, i.e. the liability of employers for the torts of their employees. In its 1999 ruling in Bazley v. Curry, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated 2008 CanLIIDocs 35 exactly why this kind of faultless liability exists in Canada, and how it is justifed. In medical malpractice cases involving teaching hospitals, there are usually three possible defendants to a negligence action: the attending physician, the treating resident, and the hospital. Due to the legal nature of their employment relationship, if the resident is found liable, so too is her employer, the hospital. Tis liability is regardless of fault. Te attending physician, on the other hand, can only be held liable with fault. Tis paper proposes that imposing vicarious liability on the hospital or any other party in this type of action is inconsistent with the justifcations outlined in Bazley v. Curry. Liability in this particular context, it is argued, should be limited to liability with fault. Tis paper also briefy explores possible reasons why the courts have demonstrated a general preference to have hospitals, rather than attending physicians, pay judgments to injured plaintifs. It takes notice of a newly emerging non-delegable duty of care owed by hospitals to patients, and further points out the unique public source of funding for malpractice judgments regardless of who is liable.
    [Show full text]
  • St Albans City Archive Catalogues - Transcription
    St Albans City Archive Catalogues - Transcription Introduction The St Albans City Archive is one of the main sources of primary material for anyone researching the history of the city. However, understanding what is in the archive is daunting as the key finding aid, the catalogue produced by William Le Hardy in the 1940s, does not match the standard of modern catalogues. Improvements are underway. The City Archive has been held at Hertfordshire Archives & Local Studies (HALS) in Hertford since the 1990s. HALS are currently engaged in an extensive project to improve access to its catalogues via the internet. The City Archive is part of this project but it is likely to be several years before the fully revised catalogue is available on-line. In light of this and with HALS’ agreement, the St Albans & Hertfordshire Architectural & Archaeological Society (SAHAAS) has opted to publish the following transcription of Le Hardy’s catalogue together with relevant material from the ‘Interim’ catalogue. (The latter represents a further deposit by St Albans City Council in the 1990s). For the benefit of SAHAAS members, most of whom live closer to St Albans than to Hertford, we have noted on the transcript the following additional information: 1. Microfilm numbers: much of the pre-1830 archive has been microfilmed. Copies of these films are held in the Local Studies filing cabinets at St Albans Central Library. (See column marked Microfilm/Book) 2. A transcription of the St Albans Borough Quarter Sessions Rolls, 1784-1820, was published by the Hertfordshire Record Society (HRS) in 1991. (See column marked Microfilm/Book) Finally, some of the items catalogued by Le Hardy were not subsequently deposited by the City Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Liability for Economic Crime, Call for Evidence
    Corporate Liability for Economic Crime Call for evidence This Call for Evidence begins on 13 January 2017 This Call for Evidence ends on 24 March 2017 Corporate Liability for Economic Crime Call for evidence Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty January 2017 Cm 9370 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to Criminal Law & Sentencing Policy Unit at roderick.macauley@justice.gsi.gov.uk Print ISBN 9781474139052 Web ISBN 9781474139069 ID 181116 01/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office About this call for evidence To: This call for evidence invites academics, business, civil society, lawyers and other interested parties across the UK to consider whether there is a case for changes to the regime for corporate criminal liability for economic crime in the United Kingdom. Duration:
    [Show full text]
  • The Knowledge Standard for ISP Copyright and Trademark Secondary Liability: a Comparative Study on the Analysis of US and EU Laws
    The Knowledge Standard for ISP Copyright and Trademark Secondary Liability: A Comparative Study on the Analysis of US and EU Laws A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctoral of Philosophy in Law By: Mohammad Sadeghi 1002256 School of Law Brunel University London 2013 i Declaration I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own except where it is stated otherwise. Mohammad Sadeghi i Abbreviations Used DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act ECD: Electronic Commerce Directive ECJ: European Court of Justice Electronic Commerce Directive: Directive 2000/31/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market UK CDPA: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 UK: United Kingdom US: United States of America ii Abstract Holders of rights sue ISPs for copyright and trademark infringement: specifically, for contributory liability through the ISP’s knowledge of user infringement. Knowledge about user infringement has been prevalently recognised as a crucial element of ISPs’ secondary liability, but the approaches concerning the knowledge standard are different in US copyright case law (traditional tort), the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the US Lanham Act, US trademark case law, and the EU Electronic Commerce Directive. Their differences have posed questions on the efficacy of the current knowledge standards and case law interpretations to omit legal ambiguities and offer appropriate guidance for tackling issues. This research presents that the US knowledge standards and the ECD knowledge standard apply broad knowledge standards to evaluate ISPs’ knowledge but they differ in terms of their elements and conditions for permitting ISPs and copyright holders to co-exist and combat copyright infringement.
    [Show full text]
  • Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown Andrew C
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Maxwell Institute Publications 2011 Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown Andrew C. Skinner D. Morgan Davis Carl Griffin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi Part of the Religious Education Commons Recommended Citation Skinner, Andrew C.; Davis, D. Morgan; and Griffin,a C rl, "Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown" (2011). Maxwell Institute Publications. 17. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/mi/17 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maxwell Institute Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu. bountiful harvest bountiful harvest essays in honor of s. kent brown Edited by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin Cover design by Stephen Hales Creative, Inc. Frontispiece by Mark A. Philbrick Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602 maxwellinstitute.byu.edu © 2011 The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bountiful harvest : essays in honor of S. Kent Brown / edited by Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl Griffin. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8425-2804-7 (alk. paper) 1. Theology. 2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I. Brown, S. Kent. II. Skinner, Andrew C., 1951- III.
    [Show full text]
  • Emily White Finished Thesis
    A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications WHITE, Emily Charlotte Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ A Sheffield Hallam University thesis This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL HISTORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION Emily Charlotte White A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Law by Research September 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Emily White Finished Thesis
    A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications WHITE, Emily Charlotte Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version WHITE, Emily Charlotte (2017). A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications. Masters, Sheffield Hallam University. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL HISTORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION Emily Charlotte White A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Law by Research September 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law. The main focus of the piece is based upon the decisions of A M Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2016] UKSC 11 and Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Impala
    CCC EXHIBIT 10 Remedial Consequences of Classifi cation of a Privacy Action: Dog or Wolf, Tort or Equity ? barbara mcdonald and david rolph I. Introduction Th ere can be no real dispute that a claim for breach of confi dence is not a claim in tort … [H]istory does not determine identity. Th e fact that dogs evolved from wolves does not mean that dogs are wolves. … I conclude that the tort of misuse of private information is a tort within the meaning of ground 3.1 (9) [of the Civil Procedure Rules]. 1 In Google Inc v Vidal-Hall , 2 the Court of Appeal affi rmed Tugendhat J ’ s determi- nation that misuse of private information was a tort for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules and was distinct from the equitable cause of action for breach of confi dence. Th is was a signifi cant development in the evolution of misuse of private information, which had originated a little over a decade earlier out of breach of confi dence. Th e transformation of misuse of private information from equitable wrong to tort could be expected to have an impact on the remedies avail- able and the principles upon which they are granted. Th is chapter considers some of the remedial consequences of classifying ‘ wrongful misuse of private information ’ as a cause of action in tort, rather than as the basis of a claim for relief in equity. Many of these consequences are more than merely procedural: they aff ect the substance of the parties ’ rights and obliga- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Workmen's Compensation Act--Incidental Occupation
    St. John's Law Review Volume 8 Number 1 Volume 8, December 1933, Number 1 Article 10 Workmen's Compensation Act--Incidental Occupation Emil F. Koch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact selbyc@stjohns.edu. NOTES AND COMMENT being." 27 Chief Justice Marshall concluded "that general words must not only be limited to cases within the jurisdiction of the state, but also to those objects to which the legislature intended to apply them." 28 The decision in the case under consideration constitutes legislation by the judiciary. "It is the function of the Court to construe the statute and not to defeat it as construed." 29 "It is the duty of all courts of justice," said Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, "to keep their eye steadily upon the interest of the public, even in the administration of commitative justice; and when they find an action is founded upon a claim injurious to the public, and which has a bad tendency, to give it no countenance or assistance in foro civili." 30 As the decision now stands, the purpose of the statute is lost. Is it to be assumed that any man may now make a livelihood illegally? Can he take his chance in winning and if successful retain his gains, and in losing bring an action and recover the money he has lost? This undoubtedly will stimulate gambling to the nth degree, for under the law of the recent decision the bookmaker is unable even to offset his losses.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissenting Opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh, P
    # ! " 52 6 78$ 2 234 01 ./ , * )$*+ ), - ( %&' $ @: ./ , * - A% )7<#4 =>? & & ; ) :$( . ! ) I : )(+: "+ 5 ) F%' * 62+ E%B' @BCD ? * %&' 2+ OP$C ( )2 2 B' M' )EB B+ N$! # C ) 3 6 J$8$ 6 KBL 1 Y&T & &' V& WX U $L# )A&T E%CD .QR ERS R @B M 7D )7 B ' ' "+ BC 7X BC( ;>M P(1 # *X Q 8 # D R(B; & ..& # [T - 2+ -X / .E&8C*( Z % -4 ^'# _ >] <$ .& # Z \<( - S !( " A%( *( VS ` V<&+ L B; # N2 2( / L BD 2` a;>* *=: 62+ VQD -$ - \!&* " )1= &b - 5 ..RCD _ / -4 VS K&MD LC c " / c$ *1 O#&( @>` 62+( (BX -R$` 7' ` .B='+( L:&+ "+ &a !"# L ;>8 e%T B CD LD( Y&Z .d R(B LCc'( D&Q( :&U R(B2 `D * 7 2C ( bg R .2 V*] ,=:R &U+( !%R 10 ^T B+ *U &! & Q &b( *] ,=:R &U+( !%R 10 B+ &M Z* ^Z .3 D&Q( :&U R(B 62+ & &' " Y?! 7M# .4 $W/ 4 $' e$* :Y&Z 7 2C " J(4 "X& .5 B 2' $' :\ <$ () p$' B - %&* o & # :Y&Z 7 2C " W "X& .6 Y&Z ;& ' ?!$ -1 1909 )_ 2 ( . .q () 2005 )_ -t( 7 EB `( B ` (s) 2005 )-$` X - %$` #(& (e) 1965 q%/%t (R) Y&Z & &' ` =& Y?1 -2 1905 @+ $; &*( p$' B :$ .7 p$' B - R -1 ` @C 5 # *D 1905 @+ 6 ; R4 () 1905 BCD R4 (s) &* - R -2 ` @C 5 # *D 1905 @+ 6 ; R4 () 1905 @+ BCD R4 (s) =&! P(1 .8 +$<$* ;>M 9r ,=' M' 2*] D R(B; & 12 EB & w =MZ -0D $'* () L 2+ &M ' L =:$ -(%B' " 7S# Y&Z -0D $'* (s) (\ M & ` 7D' "** & ` ) & ` % C (e) ! .10 &T :7 / +,/012 ( ) * +,*-.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangerous Instrument Doctrine
    THE DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT DOCTRINE The dangerous instrument doctrine which has often been used as a basis of liability, particularly in the case of the operation of steam railroads, is an anomalous one and few courts seem to have attempted any careful limitations upon its application. The rule has been stated as follows: "Whenever the master, having under his control some specially dangerous agency or instrumen- tality, and which he is therefore under special obligation to keep with care, confides this duty to his servant or agent, he will be responsible if the duty be not performed, whether through the negligence or the wantonness or the malice of his servant or agent."' It is to be noticed that the basis of liability here is entirely dif- ferent from that in ,ordinary cases of master and servant. In the law of master and servant the master is held only when it can be shown that an injury was caused by his servant while acting within the scope of his employment, and the master is relieved from liability by showing that the servant, who caused the injury, was upon a "frolic of his own."' 2 The rule as applied in ordinary cases of master and servant is that stated in M'Manus v. Crickett:3 "When a servant quits sight of the object for which he is employed, and without having in view his master's orders pursues that which his own malice suggests, he no longer acts in pursuance of the authority given him, and . his master will not be answerable for such act." The dangerous instru- ment doctrine, if it is to be considered as a rule upon which the master is to be held, is opposed to this fundamental principle of the law of agency; for the very idea for which it stands is that the master shall be held, even though the servant has for the time being entirely lost sight of his master's business and is only carry- ing out his own wishes and designs.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of MISSOURI No. SC 91617 EDDIE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI No. SC 91617 EDDIE CLUCK, Appellant, vs. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent. SUBSTITUTE REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT Respectfully submitted, Bautista Allen Armbruster, Dripps, Jose Bautista, #52583 Winterscheidt & Blotevogel, LLC P.O. Box 412456 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 (816) 221-0382 Telephone (800) 816-7060 Facsimile Charles W. Armbruster III #40027 E-mail: jose@bautistaallencom Michael T. Blotevogel #55030 Roy C. Dripps #29789 219 Piasa Street, P.O. Box 8338 Alton, IL 62002 (800) 917-1529 Telephone (800) 927-1529 Facsimile E-mail: charlesa@adwblaw.com; mikeb@adwblaw.com royd@adwblaw.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities............................................................................................................iii Reply to UP’s Statement of Facts........................................................................................1 Instructions.......................................................................................................................1 Proceedings before the Court of Appeals ........................................................................2 Argument.............................................................................................................................3 I. The trial court committed prejudicial error in denying Cluck’s motion for a partial directed verdict as to liability ..............................................................................................3 A. A directed verdict was proper because UP’s counsel
    [Show full text]