Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

195 S.E. 391, 213 N.C. 208, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 44

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 2, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 195 S.E. 391 (Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bright v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 195 S.E. 391, 213 N.C. 208, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 44 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We see no error in the court below granting the non-suit. There was no sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury that Hugh Gaddy, an employee of defendant, was about his master’s business *209 when he injured the plaintiff. He quit his work and was on his way home and there is no evidence that he was on duty or that the bicycle was.b.eing used by Gaddy in the defendant’s business at the time of the collision with plaintiff. We think this case is similar to Liverman v. Cline, 212 N. C., 43 (45).

“Where one person is sought to be charged with the negligence or wrongdoing of another, the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person so sought to be charged, at the time of and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose. The fact .that the former was at the time in the general employment and pay of the latter, does not necessarily make the latter chargeable.” Wyllie v. Palmer, 137 N. Y., 248.

For the reasons given, the judgment in the court below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We see no error in the court below granting the non-suit. There was no sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury that Hugh Gaddy, an employee of defendant, was about his master’s business *209 when he injured the plaintiff. He quit his work and was on his way home and there is no evidence that he was on duty or that the bicycle was.b.eing used by Gaddy in the defendant’s business at the time of the collision with plaintiff. We think this case is similar to Liverman v. Cline, 212 N. C., 43 (45).

“Where one person is sought to be charged with the negligence or wrongdoing of another, the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person so sought to be charged, at the time of and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose. The fact .that the former was at the time in the general employment and pay of the latter, does not necessarily make the latter chargeable.” Wyllie v. Palmer, 137 N. Y., 248.

For the reasons given, the judgment in the court below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 S.E. 391, 213 N.C. 208, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bright-v-western-union-telegraph-co-nc-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack