Joyner v. Aaa Cooper Transportation

Supreme Court of Alabama

Joyner v. Aaa Cooper Transportation

477 So. 2d 364, 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1374

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 4, 1985

Docket83-340

StatusPublished

Cited by36 cases

This text of 477 So. 2d 364 (Joyner v. Aaa Cooper Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joyner v. Aaa Cooper Transportation, 477 So. 2d 364, 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1374 (Ala. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

This case involves actions for assault and battery and trespass to the person. The circuit court granted a directed verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiffs, Timothy L. Joyner, Thomas Earl Hall, and Danny Wyatt, were, at the time of the incidents complained of, employees of AAA Cooper Transportation in Montgomery, Alabama. They testified that the terminal manager of AAA, Horace G. Wilhoite, committed assault and battery or trespass to their persons by forcing or attempting to force them to engage in homosexual acts with him. Their action against Wilhoite was settled for $2,000. Plaintiffs here pursue their action against *Page 365 AAA, contending that AAA was responsible for the actions of its terminal manager.

For AAA to become liable for these alleged intentional torts of its agent, the plaintiffs must offer evidence that the agent's wrongful acts were in the line and scope of his employment, Jessup v. Shaddix, 275 Ala. 281, 154 So.2d 39 (1963); Railway Express Agency v. Burns, 255 Ala. 557,52 So.2d 177 (1950); Perfection Mattress Spring Co. v. Windham,236 Ala. 239, 182 So. 6 (1938); Western Union Telegraph Co. v.Hill, 25 Ala. App. 540, 150 So. 709, cert. denied, 227 Ala. 469,150 So. 711 (1933); or that the acts were in furtherance of the business of AAA, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 212 Ala. 212,102 So. 130 (1924); Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v.Braggs, 285 Ala. 396, 232 So.2d 638 (1970); or that AAA participated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful acts,Decatur Petroleum Haulers, Inc. v. Germany, 268 Ala. 211,105 So.2d 852 (1958); C.O. Osborn Contracting Co. v. Alabama GasCorp., 273 Ala. 6, 135 So.2d 166 (1961).

Neither Hall nor Wyatt reported any of these incidents to Wilhoite's superiors. Joyner informed Earl Dove, an officer of AAA, about the advance Wilhoite made to him. Dove immediately informed William Buntin, the general manager over all AAA terminals, of Joyner's complaint. Buntin conducted an investigation and informed Wilhoite that if another complaint of this nature came to his attention he would lay off Wilhoite and conduct a full scale investigation. Buntin told Joyner that an incident of this nature would not occur again, and Joyner testified that another incident, in fact, did not occur. The conduct of AAA, when confronted with this complaint, can certainly not be characterized as ratification of Wilhoite's activities.

Furthermore, a careful search of the record fails to reveal even a scintilla of evidence to indicate that Wilhoite's acts were within the line and scope of his employment or that they were in furtherance of AAA's business.

Because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support any of the plaintiffs' theories of recovery against AAA, we find that the trial court properly granted the motion for a directed verdict. Hickox v. Vester Morgan, Inc., 439 So.2d 95 (Ala. 1983); City of Birmingham v. Wright, 379 So.2d 1264 (Ala. 1980); Crigler v. Salac, 438 So.2d 1375 (Ala. 1983). Therefore, the judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

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

This case involves actions for assault and battery and trespass to the person. The circuit court granted a directed verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiffs, Timothy L. Joyner, Thomas Earl Hall, and Danny Wyatt, were, at the time of the incidents complained of, employees of AAA Cooper Transportation in Montgomery, Alabama. They testified that the terminal manager of AAA, Horace G. Wilhoite, committed assault and battery or trespass to their persons by forcing or attempting to force them to engage in homosexual acts with him. Their action against Wilhoite was settled for $2,000. Plaintiffs here pursue their action against *Page 365 AAA, contending that AAA was responsible for the actions of its terminal manager.

For AAA to become liable for these alleged intentional torts of its agent, the plaintiffs must offer evidence that the agent's wrongful acts were in the line and scope of his employment, Jessup v. Shaddix, 275 Ala. 281, 154 So.2d 39 (1963); Railway Express Agency v. Burns, 255 Ala. 557,52 So.2d 177 (1950); Perfection Mattress Spring Co. v. Windham,236 Ala. 239, 182 So. 6 (1938); Western Union Telegraph Co. v.Hill, 25 Ala. App. 540, 150 So. 709, cert. denied, 227 Ala. 469,150 So. 711 (1933); or that the acts were in furtherance of the business of AAA, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Carter, 212 Ala. 212,102 So. 130 (1924); Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v.Braggs, 285 Ala. 396, 232 So.2d 638 (1970); or that AAA participated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful acts,Decatur Petroleum Haulers, Inc. v. Germany, 268 Ala. 211,105 So.2d 852 (1958); C.O. Osborn Contracting Co. v. Alabama GasCorp., 273 Ala. 6, 135 So.2d 166 (1961).

Neither Hall nor Wyatt reported any of these incidents to Wilhoite's superiors. Joyner informed Earl Dove, an officer of AAA, about the advance Wilhoite made to him. Dove immediately informed William Buntin, the general manager over all AAA terminals, of Joyner's complaint. Buntin conducted an investigation and informed Wilhoite that if another complaint of this nature came to his attention he would lay off Wilhoite and conduct a full scale investigation. Buntin told Joyner that an incident of this nature would not occur again, and Joyner testified that another incident, in fact, did not occur. The conduct of AAA, when confronted with this complaint, can certainly not be characterized as ratification of Wilhoite's activities.

Furthermore, a careful search of the record fails to reveal even a scintilla of evidence to indicate that Wilhoite's acts were within the line and scope of his employment or that they were in furtherance of AAA's business.

Because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support any of the plaintiffs' theories of recovery against AAA, we find that the trial court properly granted the motion for a directed verdict. Hickox v. Vester Morgan, Inc., 439 So.2d 95 (Ala. 1983); City of Birmingham v. Wright, 379 So.2d 1264 (Ala. 1980); Crigler v. Salac, 438 So.2d 1375 (Ala. 1983). Therefore, the judgment is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, SHORES and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 So. 2d 364, 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyner-v-aaa-cooper-transportation-ala-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack