Archuleta v. Floersheim Mercantile Co.

Citations

• 25 N.M. 632
• 187 P. 272

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT</p> <p>1. In a suit to recover damages the complaint proceeded upon two theories: (1) That the defendant was negligent in permitting fire to escape from its premises and communicate to the property of the plaintiff, and (2) the defendant being a corporation, that the fire was purposely started by an agent or employe of the defendant company and allowed to consume its property, and by reason of the starting' of the fire on defendant’s property it communicated to plaintiff’s property and destroyed the same. Defendant moved for an instructed verdict. Held, that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the company in permitting the fire to escape from its premises; and (2) that if the fire was started by an officer, agent, or employe of the defendant company, the setting of the fire and destruction of the corporation’s property was outside of the course of employment o£ such officer, agent, or employe, and the corporation was not liable for the act of such agent.</p> <p>J?. 634</p> <p>2. The master is liable for the wanton or malicious acts of his servant if they are committed while the servant is acting in tlie execution of his authority and within the course of his employment, but the master is not liable where the servant is not acting in the execution of his master’s authority and 'within the course of his employment. P. 639</p>