Richberger v. American Express Co.

Citations

• 73 Miss. 161

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant. Express company. Liability of, foi' torts of agent.</p> <p>Where one has complained of having been required to pay an overcharge on an express package, and the local agent who made the overcharge, on refunding the excess and taking his receipt therefor, immediately thereafter, while he yet remains in the express office, to which he had gone on business, “wilfully, wantonly, oppressively and wrongfully curses, abuses, insults and maltreats him,” because he has demanded and had such excess refunded, the express company is liable in damages for the tort thus committed by its agent.</p> <p>2. Same. Test of liability.</p> <p>The doctrine, once prevalent, that the master is never liable for the wilful or malicious acts of his servant, has been widely departed from in modern jurisprudence, and the true test of liability now rests upon the inquiry of whether or not the injurious act was done in the course of the master’s business. Williams v. Planters’ Ins. Co., 57 Miss., 759, cited; and McCoy v. McKowen, 26 lb., 487, and New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Harrison, 48 lb., 112, overruled in so far as they conflict herewith.</p> <p>3. Same. Connection of tort with master’s business. Must be immediate. Case.</p> <p>The injurious act complained of was not, on the averments of the declaration, so separated by time and logical sequence from the refunding of the excess and taking of the receipt, which were the business of the master, as to relieve the master of liability, the whole transaction having consumed but a few moments, and all of its features constituting one continuous and unbroken occurrence, while the provoking cause of the tort was the lawful demand made for the excess.</p>