Fletcher v. Meredith

.Bond, O. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The -sole question presented is. whether upon the evidence in this case it could be found as a matter of fact that the driver of a truck of the appellees which struck and injured the appellant was at the time acting within the sdope of his employment. The ease was tried before the court below without a jury, and at the conclusion of the testimony the court ruled that upon the nneontradicted evidence it appeared that the driver was not so acting within the 'scope of his employment, and that the plaintiff was, therefore', not entitled to recover against his employer. Ho question of negligence has been argued, and we are informed by the appellant in his brief that testimony not bearing on the question of employment just stated has been omitted in making up the record.

The result is an admirably succinct presentation of that single ground of decision. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was struck by an automobile truck as, be was walking, with his bicycle, at night along the side of the state roaid near1 Parole, in Anne Arundel County, and that the truck was owned by the appellees and was being driven by their chauffeur, Frank Dorsey. Dorsey -and the appellees all testified that on the morning of that day- he, Dorsey, had asked Air. William Meredith ⁵⁸² to lend him a Ford! truck belonging -to the firm to go to the funeral of an uncle of Dorsey’s, near McKendree, in the lower part of the county, and that Mr. Meredith had said the Ford truck could not be spared', but th'a-t there was a 1-oad of lumber to be delivered at Mason’s Beach, in that same direction, and Dorsey could take the truck he usually drove, deliver the lumber, and then -take the rest of the -afternoon off and use the truck to go- to- the funeral.

This- p-l-an was carried ou-t, Dorsey taking ’bis- sister on the truck and leaving with the lumber early in the afternoon, delivering the lumber and then going on to the funeral. It was on the return to Annapolis, and only a short -distance from Annap-olis, .that the appellant was struck. It was then dark, the headlights o-f the truck having been lighted. It is conceded by the appellant that under the previous deoisions of this Court there -could be no recovery by him if the driver was- at -the time engaged -on hi® 'own business or pleasure, and not on any business of his employer.

The rules of respondeat superior or agency are the only rules -of common law upOn which a vicarious liability of the employer migiht he based, and under these rules the liability can be extended only to the limits of the employer’s business. Debelius v. Benson, 129 Md. 693 ; Whitelock v. Dennis, 139 Md. 557 ; Myers v. Shipley, 140 Md. 380 ; Louis v. Johnson, 146 Md. 115 . Therefore, if the -accident had -occurred while the truck was going to the funeral, beyond the place of delivery of the lumber, no question of liability of -the truck -owners wtou-ld be raised!. But recovery is sought on the theory that Dorsey had finished his own use of the trutek and had returned to the employer’s business by returning -toward Annapolis, where the truck was kept.

The argument is that the work of delivering the lumber at Mason’s Beach, which was, of course, the employer’s