Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencewillsustained
plaintiffwillappellantappellee

Related Cases

Herr v. Wheeler, 272 Va. 310, 634 S.E.2d 317
View Case »
Stinnett v. Buchele, 598 S.W.2d 469
View Case »
Trentacost v. Brussel, 82 N.J. 214, 412 A.2d 436
View Case »
Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634
View Case »
Wassell v. Adams, 865 F.2d 849
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Trico Coffee Co. v. Clemens, 168 Miss. 748, 151 So. 175

Facts

Eddie Clemens, a 9-year-old boy, was invited by Morris Slaydon, a salesman for Trico Coffee Company, to ride on the running board of the company's truck. While driving at excessive speed on a public highway, Slaydon swerved to avoid a culvert and oncoming vehicles, causing Clemens to fall off the truck and sustain injuries. Prior to the incident, the company's manager had reprimanded Slaydon for allowing passengers on the truck, indicating a disregard for safety protocols.

The record discloses that the appellant company was engaged in the business of selling coffee and other groceries from an inclosed truck in which were stored articles of merchandise. Slaydon was a salesman of the appellant company whose duty it was to drive the truck on a certain route, and sell and deliver its groceries.

Issue

Whether Trico Coffee Company is liable for the injuries sustained by Eddie Clemens due to the willful and wanton conduct of its employee, Morris Slaydon.

The sole point presented by the appellant here is that the court was in error in not granting it a peremptory instruction.

Rule

The principle of respondeat superior applies, holding an employer liable for the willful and wanton acts of an employee performed within the scope of employment.

Principle of respondeat superior applies to master in case of injury as result of willful and wanton act of employee.

Analysis

The court determined that Slaydon's actions constituted willful and wanton negligence, as he knowingly placed Clemens in a dangerous situation by allowing him to ride on the running board and driving at excessive speeds. Despite the argument that Clemens was a trespasser, the court found that the driver had a duty to avoid willfully and wantonly injuring him, which he failed to uphold.

Under such circumstances the principle of respondeat superior applies to the master.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Eddie Clemens, holding that Trico Coffee Company was liable for the injuries caused by the willful and wanton conduct of its employee.

Being of the opinion that the appellee, plaintiff in the court below, was entitled to the peremptory instruction requested, which was refused by the court, it follows that this case cannot be reversed.

Who won?

Eddie Clemens prevailed in the case because the court found that the actions of the driver were willful and wanton, leading to his injuries, and that the company was liable under respondeat superior.

The court there held that W. R. Rogers was liable as master, because the plaintiff's decedent was killed as a result of the willful and wanton act of the servant, Victor Rogers, in driving the car against a mule, while moving at an excessive rate of speed, thereby causing a wreck.

You must be