Higbee Co. v. Jackson

Citations

• 101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 75

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Respondeat superior — Scope of employment — Employe violates instructions — Automobiles —• Infant or trespasser injured on truck — Liability of owner — Wanton and wilful negligence — Violation of statute or ordinance — Questions for jury — Negligence and proximate cause.</p> <p>1. Where an employe, to whom the owner has committed the operation of an auto-truck in the owner’s business, permits an infant to ride on the truck in violation of his instructions and the infant is injured by the wanton and wilful conduct of the employe, while in the course and in the scope of his employment, the owner is responsible.</p> <p>2. Where one is a trespasser on an auto-truck, which has been committed to an employe by the owner for operation in the owner’s business, and the trespasser is injured by the wanton and wilful conduct of the employe while in the course and within the scope of his employment and while aware of a perilous position of the trespasser, the owner is responsible.</p> <p>3. To constitute wanton negligence it is not necessary that there should be ill-will toward the person injured, but an entire absence of care for the safety of others, which exhibits indifference to consequences, establishes legal wantonness. Such a mental attitude distinguishes wrongs caused by wanton negligence from torts arising from mere negligence.</p> <p>4. The simple violation of a statute or ordinance does not of itself constitute wilful and wanton negligence. The question whether there was such negligence, and if so whether it was the proximate cause of injury in a particular case, is one of fact to be determined by the jury in the light of all of the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence under proper instructions.</p>