Case Title: Curtis Circulation Co. v. Henderson

Citation: 342 S.W.2d 89

Docket Number: 5-2276

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1961-01-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
342 S.W.2d 89 (1961) CURTIS CIRCULATION CO., Appellant, v. Coyle D. HENDERSON and Alice Henderson, Appellees. No. 5-2276. Supreme Court of Arkansas. January 16, 1961. *90 Wootton, Land & Matthews, Hot Springs, for appellant. Walter J. Hebert and Curtis L. Ridgway, Jr., Hot Springs, for appellees. JOHNSON, Justice. This case arises out of a judgment for damages resulting from an automobile collision. The damages were rendered against the appellant because of the negligent acts of an individual who was driving appellant's motor vehicle and who was at the time of the collision appellant's employee. There are two principal issues on appeal: (1) Was appellant's employee acting within the scope of his employment when the collision in question occurred? and (2) Was the jury properly instructed? It was undisputed that at the time of the collision an employee of appellant, driving a vehicle owned by appellant, collided with the vehicle owned and occupied by plaintiffs. Upon this showing, an inference or presumption of fact arose that at the time of the collision the employee was acting within the scope of his employment and in the furtherance of his master's business, which presumption might be overcome by evidence to the contrary. See Ford & Son Sanitary Co. v. Ransom, 213 Ark. 390, 210 S.W.2d 508, and cases there cited. The point in issue on this appeal is whether this presumption was overcome as a matter of law or whether it was an issue of fact for the jury. The distinction between presumptions of law and fact is clearly drawn in Mullins v. Ritchie Grocer Co., 183 Ark. 218, 35 S.W.2d 1010, 1012, where we said: In arguing that this presumption of fact in the case at bar was rebutted as a matter of law and that there was no question for the jury on this issue, the appellant relies, primarily, on the testimony of Marion B. Burkhalter, who was a party defendant, and the testimony of Martha Elmore, who was a passenger in appellant's car at the time of the collision. Burkhalter's testimony may not be taken as uncontradicted. He was a party and his testimony was contradicted as a matter of law. Cousins v. Cooper, Ark., 339 S.W.2d 316. Mrs. Elmore was extremely vague about many things that occurred in a three day period when she was with the employee constantly and during which the collision occurred. In fact, she stated "That I don't remember too much about," when asked to detail what happened on the trip from Hot Springs to Malvern during which the collision occurred. She further stated that after the collision they went to Jones Mill but that she did not know where they went thereafter. The record shows that the employee was a married man with a family who was on a drunken spree with Mrs. Elmore as his companion. This relationship was obviously illicit and immoral. The fact that she could not remember much about occurrences on the night in question gives rise to the inference that she was also drinking. Therefore, even though she said that the employee transacted no business on behalf of the employer on the trip which resulted in the collision, such testimony did not require a finding that, as a matter of law, the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. We have repeatedly held that a jury does not have to blindly accept everything that a witness may say. As we said in Reserve Loan Life Ins. Co. v. Compton, 190 Ark. 1039, 82 S.W.2d 537, 539: For reversal, appellant contends that the following instruction was error: Appellant complains that this instruction was a "binding instruction" and was erroneous *92 because it required a finding for plaintiff without a finding that the employee was negligent, which issue was omitted from the instruction. We cannot agree that this is a binding instruction. It should be noted that the instruction says that the jury "may" return a verdict for the plaintiffs. It does not say that the jury "shall", "must", or "will", return such a verdict. Appellant cites Des Arc Oil Mill, Inc. v. McLeod, 137 Ark. 615, 206 S.W. 655, as holding that a similar instruction was erroneous. Upon re-examination of the cited case we find that the case does not hold that the instruction is "binding". The case does show that the trial court did not give a proper instruction on the defense of assumed risk and therefore the omission of this defense in the instruction quoted in the case did amount to error. However, the case does not hold that the error could not have been cured by a separate instruction properly stating the defense of assumed risk and the consequences of a finding that the risk was assumed. In the case now before us, we find that the defendant's requested Instruction No. 4, which was given, and defendant's requested Instruction No. 8, as amended and given, adequately advises the jury as to negligence and the necessity of first finding that the employee was negligent before finding for the plaintiffs. In Roland v. Terryland, 221 Ark. 837, 256 S.W.2d 315, we quoted 53 Am.Jur. Sec. 547, as follows: While we do not believe that the giving of plaintiff's requested Instruction No. 2, as set out herein, necessitates a reversal, we do not wish to be understood as approving its form. Upon a retrial it should be revised to include the missing elements. Appellant complains of the giving of plaintiff's requested Instruction No. 1, which reads: The complaint is that the part of theinstruction which reads: "or apparent scope thereof" was abstract. In this, we agree. There was no evidence showing anything from which any inference as to "apparent scope of authority" could be drawn. Further, the doctrine of "apparent scope of authority" has no application in tort cases unless there has been a reliance upon apparent authority which caused the injury complained of. See Restatement of Agency 2d, Sec. 265, Subsection 2, p. 575, and comment on same at page 576. For the error indicated, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. Justice ROBINSON is of the opinion that the instruction discussed under point 2 herein is binding and the case should alsobe reversed for that reason. ROBINSON, J., concurs.