(Download) "Johnson v. City of Billings Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Johnson v. City of Billings Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 06, 1936
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
Counties ? Cities ? Personal Injuries Due to Automobile Accident ? Torts ? When Corporate Bodies Liable for Injuries for Tortious Acts of Servants ? Doctrine of Respondeat Superior. Counties ? Repair of Highways ? Immunity from Liability for Tortious Acts of Servants. 1. Quaere: Is a county, while engaged in the repair of highways, acting in its governmental capacity and, therefore, immune from liability for the tortious acts of its servants? Counties ? Cities ? Highways ? Automobiles ? Personal Injuries Due to Acts of Servants ? Liability. 2. Under the statutes of Montana with respect to the care of highways and liability for injury thereon, counties and cities stand in the same relation to the traveling public in so far, at least, as - Page 463 injury results from some act of an agent of either while engaged in by either in its proprietary, as distinguished from its governmental, capacity. Same ? Repair of Highways ? Corporate Bodies Acting in Proprietary Capacity ? Liability for Injuries to Motorist. 3. Where a county and a city were engaged in the joint enterprise of constructing a waste ditch benefiting both, under the supervision of an administrator of the federal Civil Works Administration, during the progress of which it was necessary to regravel a piece of road, the gravel being hauled by a truck driver employed by the county, the county and city were acting in their respective proprietary capacity and were liable to a motorist injured by the negligence of the truck driver. Same ? Highways ? Automobiles ? Doctrine of Respondeat Superior ? Corporate Bodies Engaged in Joint Enterprise in Private Capacity ? Liability for Injuries. 4. As against the contention of the city mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, that it could not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the negligent action of the truck driver employed by the county, held that since the county road supervisor under whose control the driver was at the time of the accident was completing work in which the county and city were engaged jointly for their benefit in their private or proprietary capacities, the city as well as the county and driver were liable.