Rudgeair v. Reading Traction Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rudgeair v. Reading Traction Co.

36 A. 859, 180 Pa. 333, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 925

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 15, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 535·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The testimony offered in this case shows that plaintiff was [338] assaulted on the street and beaten by John Yan Reed, an employee of the Traction Company, defendant; but it clearly appears that in tb e commission of the assault and battery Yan Reed was not acting within the scope of his employment as a motorman of the company, or by the authority or direction of any of its officers or agents. The principle, respondeat superior, has no application to such a purely personal trespass as that disclosed by the evidence prepared. The court was therefore clearly right in refusing to take off the nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The testimony offered in this case shows that plaintiff was [338] assaulted on the street and beaten by John Yan Reed, an employee of the Traction Company, defendant; but it clearly appears that in tb e commission of the assault and battery Yan Reed was not acting within the scope of his employment as a motorman of the company, or by the authority or direction of any of its officers or agents. The principle, respondeat superior, has no application to such a purely personal trespass as that disclosed by the evidence prepared. The court was therefore clearly right in refusing to take off the nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Rudgeair v. Reading Traction Co., 36 A. 859, 180 Pa. 333, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 925 (Pa. 1897).

Pincite

36 A. 859 (Rudgeair v. Reading Traction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related