Court Opinion

ID: 9626400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:10:46.661777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:26.741035
License: Public Domain

*265LATOUBETTE, C. J.,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reason that I have been unable to find any prejudicial error committed in the trial of the case, but I disagree with the conclusion reached that a jury question was not presented.
I am of the opinion that when the assault was made by Faherty on plaintiff he (Faherty) was an employe of the defendant, was engaged about his master’s business and was not deviating from his line of duty to accomplish some personal end. I find no evidence in the record that there was any feud or personal animosity between Faherty and plaintiff; in fact, during the course of the argument over the fire up to the time of the shovel incident, the parties were laughing and joking. Everything that was done or said during and before the assault was with reference to the fire and not otherwise, and, in my opinion, Faherty at the time was acting in the line of duty and in the course and scope of his employment. Under the authorities, the fact that in so acting he assaulted plaintiff does not excuse the defendant.
In 35 Am Jur, Master and Servant, 1006, § 575, we read:
((**-* When, however, the liability of the employer to a third person for an assault committed by his employe is to be predicated solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, the test of liability is whether or not the servant was acting within the scope of his employment. If it can be said that the assault was within the scope of the employment, the employer will be held liable; if it is to be concluded that the employee’s act was foreign to the service in which he was engaged, the employer may not be held accountable. Here, as in the case of other intentional wrongs inflicted by employees, noticeable *266changes have taken place in the law governing the employer’s responsibility. Formerly, the employer quite generally escaped liability for the consequences of assaults of his employees upon the theory that the acts complained of were outside the scope of the employment, even where the action was against a railroad corporation; but the modern tendency is to hold the employer accountable where-ever the assault has resulted from a discharge of the duties of the service, although remotely and indirectly connected therewith.”