Court Opinion

ID: 9826284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:43:12.701786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:59.602119
License: Public Domain

On Petition por Rehearing
Mr. Justice Cothran :
Upon the petition of the Insurance Company for a rehearing, I have this to say: I think *198that the statement in the opinion of Mr. Justice Watts, “there was some evidence of ratification to go to the jury; Smith is still in the employment of the Company,” should be stricken out as an incorrect statement of the law applicable to the facts of this particular case and unnecessary to the determination of the appeal.
It is an exceedingly harsh rule that the retention of a servant who has committed a tort within the scope of his employment, after discovery by the master of such tort, is some evidence of ratification by the master of such tort. It certainly does not apply where the master has no knowledge of the tort. In the case at bar there is no evidence of such knowledge, and for that reason I do not think that the retention of Smith in the Company’s employment is any evidence of ratification of his alleged slander.
The petition for a rehearing discloses a misapprehension of the Court’s position. The liability of the corporation for the alleged slander is based, not upon the fact that Smith was at the time engaged in some matter of business between Mann and the corporation, but in a matter of business between Smith and the corporation, the instruction of subordinate agents under his supervision. In this view of the matter it was immaterial whether the corporation ratified the slander or not. The above statement as to the ratification was, therefore, unnecessary to a determination of the appeal. In other respects I adhere to my concurrence and think that the petition should be dismissed.
A majority of the Court agreeing hereto, the modification suggested is ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary, Mr. Justice Marion, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy, concur.