Case Name: John A. Lloyd v. The Nelson Business College
Court: Hamilton Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1897-01
Citations: 7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: John A. Lloyd v. The Nelson Business College.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 7
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
MASTER AND SERVANT.
[Hamilton Circuit Court,
January, 1897.]
Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.
John A. Lloyd v. The Nelson Business College.
Liability op a Master eor the Malicious Act of His Servant.
The fact that the act of a servant resulting in an injury may have been malicious, and one for which he is liable to criminal prosecution, does not prevent the master from being liable for damages for such act.
Heard on Error to the Common Pleas Court.
The plaintiff in error while standing upon a step-ladder repairing the chandeliers in the defendant’s schoolroom was violently thrown to the floor and injured by the pushing of the ladder from under him by the janitor cleaning the room. The present suit is for damages on account of the wrongful act of the janitor. At the trial below an instructed verdict was returned for the defendant on the ground that the act of the janitor was malicious, and not within the scope of his employment.
Wm. E. Bundy and Wm. E. Eames, for Plaintiff in Error.
W. C, Cochran, Contra.

Opinion:
Smith, J.
We are of the opinion that the court of common pleas erred in instructing the jury at the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff below to return a verdict for the defendant.
The evidence so offered tended strongly to show that the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the wrongful conduct of the agent of the defendant company "when acting within the scope of his employment and in the execution of the service for which he was engaged by the master," and the case should have been submitted to the jury. The fact that the servant may have acted maliciously, and thus made himself liable to a criminal prosecution, does not prevent the master from being liable for damages for such act.
The verdict was against the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted. The judgment will therefore be reversed with costs, and a new trial awarded.