Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-11
THE SUPREME COURT.
IT REvERSES THE DECISION IN
STEPHENSON VS.. S. p. r. R. co.
Liability of Master for Servants
Work Outlined-A Rather Fine Point
Made.

The opinion OF the supreme court,
overruling the decision of the superior
court OF Los Angeles county, in the case
OF Mrs. Stephenson vs. the Southern Pa
cific Railroad company, was received by
Clerk Ashmore yesterday.
This was an action in which Mrs.
Stephenson received $4,000 damages for
personal injuries, alleged to have been
sustained through the negligence of the
plaintiff. Mrs. Stephenson was a pas
senger upon street car in Los Angeles,
and upon the occasion of the in
jury the street car approached the track
OF the defendant and stopped long
enough to ascertain that the engine on
the track, twenty-five feet from the
crossing, was not in motion. and then
proceeded to cross the track. and when
crossing the track the engineer negli-
gently and carelessly gave his engine
steam and commenced to back the loco
motive toward the crossing. The plaintiff
being in imminent danger of injury from
the anticipated collision, jumped from
the street car, as did other passengers,
and was injured.
The court gave the jury the following
instructions:
eff the jury believe from the evidence
that the defendants engineer, with in
tent to frighten and scare the passengers
riding upon said street car upon which
plaintiff was passenger, unnecessarily
and wantonly let the engine take steam
and started to move toward said street
car with the intention thereby to fright
en- said passengers and plaintiff, 80 that
she had reasonable cause to believe the
same was about to collide with said
street car, in order to save herself from
accident, jumped off said car, and there
by was injured, then the defendant is
guilty of negligence and the jury should
find for the plaintiff"
In giving this instruction the supreme
court holds that the lower court was in
error, saying: "The rule is of course
we'll settled that the master is civilly
liable for the wrongful or negligent act
of the servant committed while in his
service and within the scope of his
employment; that is, in the trans-
action of the masters business.
And the converse of the rule is equally
well settled that when'the servant acts
without any reference to the service for
which he is employed, and not for the
purpose of performing the work of his
employer, but to effect some independent
purpose of his own, the master is not
responsible in that case for either the
act or omission of the servant. "The
court then cites numerous decisions in
support of this position, and in conclu-
sion says:
"The evidence in this case, tending to
show the facts referred to in the instruc-
tion under consideration, is very slight,
and that part of it consisting of the
opinion of one of the witnesses that the
intention of the engineer was only to
Tighten the passengers on the street
car, is not competent for the purpose. of
proving such fact. The case was. how
ever, tried upon the theory that there
was sufficient evidence upon which to
base the instruction, and we are not
able to say that there was such an en-
tire want of evidence upon that point
that the instruction was without pre-
judice to the defendant. Judgment and
order reversed"