Court Opinion

ID: 9809474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:14:54.507987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:43.237074
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: The plaintiff was attempting to climb up on the defendant’s box car to steal a ride. A flagman on top, discovering him, told him to “Come on up.” Whether the menacing tone, or the fact that he was discovered, or, as is probable, the flourish of a pistol, intimidated the plaintiff, he *480started to run, and wten about eight feet from the ear the flagman shot the plaintiff, striking him twice. This was one continuous act. The flagman was in discharge of his duty in discovering the plaintiff, and could not put off that character and without change of position assume another while the plaintiff was running eight feet, which a calculation shows was less than half a second. He could not be an employee of the railroad when he frightened the man and cease to be an employee and fire two accurate shots within the half second, or 1-120 part of a minute, while the badly frightened man was running eight feet. As the flagman fired and struck the fleeing man twice before he could run eight feet, the pistol must have been drawn and presented before the plaintiff turned to fly. The remark of the flagman, “Come up here,” must have been-accompanied by the presented pistol, which caused the precipitate retreat of the plaintiff. The act bf the flagman was continuous, and the shooting was so quick — two shots that were hits, before the scared man could move more than eight feet — that it cannot be divided. But, independent of that, the flagman was at his post, in the exercise of his employment, and for his conduct the defendant is responsible. Hayes v. Railroad, 141 N. C., 195.
This Court has held again and again that a railroad is liable for the conduct of its agents, whether negligent or willful and wanton, when the act is done in the course of their employment. In Jackson v. Tel. Co., 139 N. C., 347, it was held that the corporation must answer for. the servant’s wrongful act, “if committed in the scope and course of the servant’s employment,” and that he is in such scope and course of employment if he “is at the time about his master’s business.” If this were not so, the corporation would never be liable, for it does not hire its employees to do negligent acts-or commit wanton and willful wrongs.
The company was held liable when its station agent got into a difficulty with an exqpassenger, over the delivery of a trunk, and killed him, though he was certainly not employed to kill passengers. Daniel v. Railroad, 111 N. C., 592. Nor was the conductor employed to kiss a female passenger, but he was on duty, and the company was held liable, in Strother v. Railroad, *481123 N. C., 197. Nor was the fireman employed to throw a chunk of coal to frighten a boy who was stealing a ride on the tender, but the company paid for the resultant injury. Pierce v. Railroad, 124 N. C., 84. Nor were the employees authorized to throw stones at a tramp stealing a ride; in fact, the duties of some did not involve that of making the tramp get off, but the company was held liable. Cook v. Railroad, 128 N. C., 333. The fact that here the employee used a pistol instead of stones, and that a half-second after the man had gotten off and was eight feet away, is an aggravation and not a defense.
In Stewart v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 47, the company was held liable for the wanton conduct of employees as to one neither a passenger nor a trespasser, by blowing the whistle and hollering to frighten plaintiff’s horse, which was injured in the resultant runaway. The question in that case, which divided the majority of the Court, whether the plaintiff could recover punitive damages or actual damages, does not now arise, but four of the Court agreed that the action could be maintained, as had been done on a similar»state of facts in Brendle v. Railroad, 125 N. C., 474; Hussey v. Railroad, 98 N. C., 34. The company was held liable for torts of its agents, even when ultra vires. Gruber v. Railroad, 92 N. C., 1; White v. Railroad, 115 N. C., 636; Waters v. Lumber Co., ib., 652. In the unanimoiis opinion of the Court, in Foot v. Railroad, 142 N. C., 52, the railroad was held liable for the willful and wanton misconduct of its employee, citing Brendle v. Railroad, supra.
There are many other cases to the same effect in this and the other -States. It is difficult to see how the company is liable if the employee throws stones or coal at a trespasser, or frightens him, by cursing, into jumping off (Hayes v. Railroad, 141 N. C., 195), but is not liable if lead is used; nor how it is responsible to one off the right of way for injuries resulting from frightening his horse by shouts and blowing the whistle, and not liable for shooting one on the right of way and not eight feet from the car.
The liability of a farmer, merchant or other citizen, in the performance of his inherent right to do business, for the conduct of his agents is necessarily not as broad as that of these great *482corporations, wliicb are given artificial existence and great special privileges, on the ground, not only that 'they shall be used for the public benefit, but on the implied agreement that they shall not be used to the public detriment. Using vast physical -and pecuniary power, they must be liable for its misuse; and, employing great numbers of men, they alone can control them, and are responsible for their discipline. They are liable for negligence of a fellow-servant and for public regulation of their charges and conduct. If an employee on a rapidly moving train throws rocks or fires into a. crowd, he could rarely be identified or found able to respond in damages. If he killed a citizen’s horse or cow by shooting from the top'of the train, the company would be responsible. ■ Why not when he shoots a man ?
Jaggard on Torts, sec. 86, thus correctly sums up the result of the authorities: “The master is liable for the conduct of his servant, within the course of his employment, not only where responsibility would attach under the test or scope of his employment, but also where the conduct is not intended to be for the master’s benefit, but for the servant’s malicious, capricious or other private purpose, and whenever a duty rests on the master to avoid doing harm to the third persons and the servant violates that duty in the course of his employment.”
Under, the l'eign of privilege in France one of the privileged class was seen to shoot a workman from the top of a building for the pleasure of seeing him tumble to the ground. He was not held to account, but the incident aided to topple over the French monarchy to its death. Corporations cannot claim such privileges for its officers or employees. If employees on a moving train can fire at cattle or at people along the track at will, without any responsibility on the part of the company, because the act is willful and wanton, then the company is using its vast privileges, not upon terms of liability for good behavior to the public, but upon the narr.ow ground that, like a private business, it is only responsible for the conduct that it authorizes. It was wrong for the plaintiff to attempt to steal a ride, but the penalty for such offense is not execution by shooting.
Upon the finding on the first and third issues the court properly rendered judgment. The finding on the second issue,'very *483clearly, was meant not to negative tbe finding on the first issue that the shooting was “reckless and wanton, and as alleged in the complaint,” but merely to negative that it was “in furtherance of the business” of the defendant. The second issue was immaterial and irrelevant and should be disregarded.