Caseflicks

Tennessee Supreme Court • 1937

Terrett v. Wray

105 S.W.2d 93 | 171 Tenn. 448 | 7 Beeler 448 | 1937 Tenn. LEXIS 124

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an owner is not vicariously liable when a child using the owner’s car for an authorized errand commits an unrelated, intentional prank outside the scope of that errand.

Background

Evans Terrett, a minor suing through his next friend, sought damages for injuries allegedly caused by an electric shock. Delmas Wray, a schoolboy, had been sent by his mother, who owned the automobile, to bring home children from school. Before returning, Delmas connected a battery to a car-door handle so that anyone grasping it would receive a shock. He invited Terrett into the car, and Terrett alleged that he was injured when he took hold of the handle to open the door.

Terrett alleged that Delmas acted wantonly and willfully while using the car for his mother’s family purpose and while carrying out her instruction to transport the children. Terrett dismissed his claim against Delmas and proceeded against Mrs. Wray. The circuit court sustained Mrs. Wray’s demurrer to the declaration, and Terrett appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Mrs. Wray was vicariously liable for her son’s intentional prank because he committed it while using her automobile to carry children home from school at her request.

Holding

No. Delmas’s act was outside the scope of his authority and employment because it was a separate, mischievous purpose unrelated to the assigned task of transporting children.

Reasoning

The Court treated the case under ordinary agency and respondeat-superior principles rather than relying on the family-purpose doctrine. A principal or master is liable only when the agent or servant commits the tort while acting within the scope of authority or course of employment.

An act falls within the course of employment when the servant is performing the master’s assigned task, using a fair and reasonable means of carrying it out, or doing something that is an ordinary and natural incident of that task. The connection must be more than the fact that the servant happened to use the master’s property while on duty.

Delmas was authorized to use the automobile to bring children home. Attaching a battery to the door handle to shock someone was not a means of transporting the children, nor was it a natural or logical incident of that assignment. It was an extraordinary and prankish act undertaken for Delmas’s own mischievous purpose.

The Court relied by analogy on a case in which a boy, instructed to water his father’s lawn, deliberately sprayed a horse to frighten it. Although the boy used a tool provided for his assigned work, his deliberate mischief was outside the scope of employment. Likewise, Delmas’s use of the car in carrying out his prank did not convert the prank into his mother’s business.

Issue #2

Whether Mrs. Wray could be liable on the ground that an automobile entrusted to her son was a dangerous instrumentality requiring liability beyond ordinary respondeat-superior rules.

Holding

No. The automobile was not treated as a dangerous instrumentality creating independent liability for the son’s willful prank.

Reasoning

The Court distinguished cases involving inherently dangerous items, such as poisons, high explosives, spring guns, and, in some settings, operating locomotives. Those cases may impose unusually stringent duties because the instrumentality itself creates an exceptional risk.

An ordinary automobile did not fall within that category for purposes of this case. Moreover, even when an instrumentality is inherently dangerous, the prevailing rule does not make the owner liable for every willful or wanton practical joke committed by the person entrusted with it.

The plaintiff’s authorities did not change the result. Those decisions recognize that a master may be liable for an unauthorized or even prohibited act when the servant is still substantially carrying out the master’s business. But Delmas’s electric-shock prank had no causal or operational connection to his mother’s instruction to transport children, and therefore remained his own distinct tort.