ARK.] HOUGH V. LEECH. 719
HOUGH V. LEECH. 4-3053
Opinion delivered July 3, 1933. 1. DEATH—NEGLIGENT SHOOTING.—In a suit by a widow for pain, suffering and death of her husband, while at work in a store, by another employee who claimed that the shooting was accidental, evidence held to show that the shooting was negligent. 2. MASTER AND SERVANT—NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW-SERVANT. — A master is not liable for the killing of a servant, caused by the negligence of a fellow-servant while not acting within the scope of his employment. 3. EVIDENCE—WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY.—Verdicts must be based On substantial evidence, and not in mere speculation. 4. APPEAL AND ERROR—CONCLUSIVENESS OF EVIDENCE. — A verdict supported by substantial evidence is conclusive. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Marvin Harris, Judge; reversed as to J. D. Hough; affirmed as to H. M. Hough. John D. Shackleford, for appellants. Oscar H. Wivni, for appellee. MEHAFFY, J. Salina Leech, widow of Will Leech, deceased, filed a complaint in Pulaski Circuit Court against J. D. Hough and Hughie Hough, alleging that about the 14th day of January, 1931, H. M. Hough carelessly and negligently, and Without ordinary care for the safety of Will Leech, husband of Salina Leech, fired a gun and shot Will Leech in the hip ; that he was thereafter taken to the hospital; that he suffered severe physical pain and mental anguish from the date of his injury until the date of his death on .1- ,nuary 24, 1931 ; that said H. M. Hough was negligent and careless in firing his
.720 HOUGH .V. "LEECH. - [187 pistol at the deceased to make hini dance, and-was negligent in using a pistol or gun loaded with powder and ball to secure amusement, shooting at deceased and other -riegroes present; that said H. M. Hongh was at the time drinking. . Leech was about 60 years of age. It is alleged that his earning capacity was $50 a month, and that his widow, who brought. the suit, had been damaged in the sum of $6,000, and prayed for judgment for the further sum of $6,000 for pain and suffering. The gunshot wound ' caused pneumonia, from . .which he died 10 days after the injury. There was a prayer for $12,000 damages against H. M. Hough: • - There is no -allegation in the complaint with reference .to J. D. Hough, and no judgment is asked in the complaint against him. s • The facts are that J. D. Hough owned a stoye North Little Rock, and his son, H. M. -Hough,•who is about 40 years of age, worked around the' store' and lived near there, and, on the day of the injury, J. D. Ileugh, the father, had gone to lunch_and Will Leech, the deceased, and another negro named -McIntosh, were at work there. H. M. Hough and Will -Leech. had both taken a drink of whiskey. _There was an old pistol in the store Which, had not been fired in a leng while. '.11. M. Hough secured thiS pistOl, fired it several times, and . finallY, while carelessly handling the pistol; shot Will Leech, as described in the cPmplaint. 'Leech livod 'about ten days thereafter, and died. - This snit is tcr recover , damages for his death and pain and . Suffering. There is no eVidence that J1 D. Hough was guilty of any negligence 'or -vvrongful' cenduct in any way: _The evidence is ample tO sustain the verdict against H. M. Hough. It is contended that H. M. Hough was about the master's business. In the case-of American Ry. Express Co. v. Mackley, 148 Ark. 227, 230 S..W. 598, a great many cases were cited by the court, and, after citing these cases, the Court said: ." The doctrine of all these cases
- HOUGH v. LEECA. 721 - is that: the-test of the master's liability is; not whether a given act is done during the existence of the servant's employment, but whether it was committed in the prosecution of the master's business." In the instant case the act was cominitted . during the existence of the employment, but it was certainly not committed in the prosecution of the master's business. It had no -cOnnec-don with the master's business. Again we said, in the same case: "Where a servant acts without reference to the service for which he is employed, and not for the purpose of performing the work of the employer, but to effect some independent purpose Of his own, the master is not responsible for either the acts or othissions of the servant." Numerous Ca§es 'of this court might i be cited in support' of this rule. Applying the test mentioned in the case cited, there is no liability in this case. . As we have already said, there is no evidence tending to show that J..D. Hough was guilty of any negligence or wrongful conduct in connection with' the shooting of Leech. Verdicts of juries must be based on evidence, must be supperted by some substantial evidence, and not on mere speculation. Hunter v. State Bank of Morrilton, 181 Ark. 907, 28 S. - W. (2d) 712. Again we'said: •- "The rule is firmly, established that ithe master is civilly liable for . the tortious acts of his . seryant, whether 'of othisSion or cenamissien 'and Whether ne o -ligent fraudulent or deceitful, when done;in the line of his .employment, even though the master did not authorize, or know of . such acts, or may . have disapproved of or . forbidden them. B . ut the act must be done 'not only while 'the ser-engaged in his Master's service, but it mu g t, 'pertain to the particular duties of that employment. * * * "An act is . within the scope Of the servant's employment, where necess ' ary accOmplish the -• purpos'e, although in excess of the pOwers actnally conferred ori the servant by the master. The purpose of the act,..rather than its method of performance, is the test of the scope of employment. * * * The mere fact that he was . in tbe
service generally of the master or that the servant was in possession of facilities afforded by the master in the use of which the injury was done would not make the act attributable to the master. The act must have been done in the execution of the service for which he was engaged." Healey v. Goal-ill, 133 Ark. 327, 202 S. W. 229. • The appellant, H. M. Hough, admits that he shot Leech, and, although he says it was an accident, he admits that he shot the pistol 5 or 6 times, and that at the time he shot Leech he had the gun, rolling it around by the. cylinders. Evidence of other witnesses tended to show that H. M. Hough was negligent, and the question of his negligence was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, and the jury's verdict, where there is any substantial evidence to support it, is conclusive here. It follows from what we have said that the judgment against H. M. Hough must be affirmed, and the judgment against J. D. Hough reversed and dismissed. It is .so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.