Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill
150 So. 709, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 171, 25 Ala. App. 540 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable for the intentional tort of an employee if the act was motivated by purely personal reasons and was not in furtherance of the employer's business, even if it occurred during work hours at the place of employment. An actionable assault consists of an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another in a rude or angry manner, creating a well-founded fear of an imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt.
Facts:
- Western Union Telegraph Co. was under contract with the plaintiff to maintain an electric clock in his place of business.
- The clock malfunctioned, and the plaintiff's wife called the local Western Union office to report the issue to the manager, Sapp.
- After no one came to service the clock, the plaintiff's wife went to the Western Union office in person around 8:30 p.m.
- She found Sapp, who was the manager on duty and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.
- Sapp told her, "If you will come back here and let me love and pet you, I will fix your clock."
- Sapp then reached for her with his hand extended over a high, wide counter.
- The plaintiff's wife jumped back to avoid being touched.
- There was conflicting evidence as to whether Sapp could have physically reached her across the counter.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Western Union Telegraph Co. in an Alabama trial court for an assault committed by its employee, Sapp.
- The defendant requested a general charge (similar to a motion for a directed verdict), which the trial court refused.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, Western Union Telegraph Co., as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Alabama.
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 an employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an assault committed by an employee when the employee's motive is purely personal and not in furtherance of the employer's business?
Opinions:
Majority - Samford, J.
No. An employer is not liable for an employee's tort when the employee's act is motivated purely by personal desires and is not done in furtherance of the employer's business. The court first addressed whether Sapp's actions constituted an assault. It concluded that an unlawful attempt to touch another in a rude manner, creating a well-founded fear of imminent battery with the apparent present ability to succeed, constitutes an assault, even if no touching occurs. The court found that the conflicting testimony about whether Sapp could reach Mrs. Hill created a question of fact for the jury. However, the court held that Western Union was not liable for this assault under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Sapp's actions were not in furtherance of his employer's business but were instead driven 'solely and alone to satisfy the sensuous desires of Sapp.' The court distinguished between acts done within the scope of employment and acts done merely during employment, concluding that Sapp had 'stepped aside wholly from his master’s business to pursue a matter entirely personal.' Therefore, liability rests with the agent (Sapp) and not the master (Western Union).
Analysis:
This case provides a classic articulation of the 'scope of employment' limitation on the doctrine of respondeat superior. It establishes that an employer's liability does not extend to acts that are purely personal to the employee, even when they occur at the workplace during business hours. The court's distinction between acts done 'within the scope of' versus 'during' employment helps define the concept of a 'frolic,' where an employee completely abandons the employer's business for personal reasons, severing vicarious liability. This precedent is crucial for understanding the boundaries of employer liability for the intentional torts of their employees.
