Puryear v. Thompson
24 Tenn. 397 (1844)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A master is liable for injuries caused by a servant's negligent or reckless conduct while carrying out the master's orders, but the master is not liable if the servant abandons the master's instructions and acts willfully to gratify personal malice.
Facts:
- Thompson, as guardian for some minors, hired a slave named Harry to Puryear for the year 1842 to work in Puryear's factory.
- Puryear's overseer, Newcomb, had a difficulty with Harry, who then ran away.
- When Harry returned a few days later, Puryear began whipping him with a cowhide.
- Puryear then handed the cowhide to Newcomb, instructing him 'to give the negro a good whipping — be sure to humble him before you let him down, and then put him to work.'
- Puryear left the factory after giving these instructions.
- Several hours later, Harry was found dead in the factory.
- Harry's body showed signs of a severe whipping, and he had bruises on his head and neck consistent with being struck by a piece of timber found nearby.
- Newcomb admitted to Puryear that the slave was dead and that 'he had whipped the negro too much, and was sorry for it.'
Procedural Posture:
- Thompson, the slave's owner, sued Puryear, the hirer, in a trial court to recover the value of the deceased slave.
- The case was tried before a jury, which received instructions on the law from the judge.
- The defendant's counsel requested a specific jury instruction regarding the overseer's potential malice, which the court declined to give.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Thompson.
- The defendant, Puryear, filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court refused.
- Puryear, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a master liable for the death of a slave killed by his overseer, when the overseer was instructed to perform a lawful punishment but may have abandoned that instruction to act on personal malice?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, J.
No. A master is not liable for his servant's willful torts done without his authority. The master's liability depends on whether the servant was acting negligently within the scope of the master's directive or whether the servant abandoned that directive to act upon his own malice. If the overseer, Newcomb, intended only to carry out Puryear's order to 'humble' the slave and in doing so acted so negligently and recklessly that it resulted in death, Puryear would be liable. However, if Newcomb abandoned the purpose of punishment and instead used instruments of torture to gratify his own malice with the intent to kill, Puryear would not be liable. The trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they did not permit the jury to consider this crucial distinction in the overseer's intent, effectively making the master liable even for the servant's malicious, willful acts.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, drawing a sharp distinction between a servant's negligence and their intentional, malicious acts. It establishes that a master's liability ceases if the servant's actions are no longer in furtherance of the master's business but are instead a product of personal malice, even if the tort occurs during the performance of an assigned task. This decision solidifies the servant's subjective intent as a critical factor in determining liability, requiring courts to differentiate between a reckless execution of an order and a willful deviation from it.
