Opinion
January 15, 1963.
March 19, 1963.
Agency — Proof of agency — Evidence — Sufficiency — Inferences — Jury question — Judgment n.o.v. — Appellate review.
1. In this appeal in which the only issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the service manager of an automobile agency was acting within the scope of his employment at 9:15 p.m. when he had an accident while driving home in a customer's automobile, and it appeared that the service manager's duties included the road testing of repaired vehicles and that frequently, with his employer's permission, he would drive a customer's automobile home in order that he might test the car while driving to or from work, and that on the day in question a customer had specifically asked him to test his automobile and that the manager had intended to test it either on the way home or the next morning on the way to work, and that on the way home he had spent approximately one hour at a tavern before the accident occurred, it was Held that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find that the manager was acting within the scope of his employment in driving home in the customer's car. [418-19]
2. In reviewing the refusal of judgment non obstante veredicto the appellate court must affirm the judgment below if any reasonable inference from the facts supports the jury finding. [418-19]
Before MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN and O'BRIEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 105, Jan. T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Sept. T., 1960, No. 172, in case of Francesco Pillo, also known as Francis Pillo, v. Ambrose F. Mohan, Jim Banes Ford, Inc., and Samuel Silver and Morris Cohen, individually and trading as Hatboro Tavern. Judgment affirmed; reargument refused April 30, 1963.
Trespass for personal injuries. Before GROSHENS, J.
Verdict entered for plaintiff in amount of $25,000 and against individual defendant and corporate defendant, and verdict directed in favor of additional defendants, corporate defendant's motions for judgment non obstante veredicto and for new trial denied and judgment entered. Corporate defendant appealed.
James M. Marsh, with him Harold Spencer, and LaBrum and Doak, for appellant.
Edward J. Hardiman, with him Pearlstine, Salkin Hardiman, for appellee.
The sole issue raised on this appeal from the denial of a motion for judgment n.o.v. is whether the court below erred in refusing to rule as a matter of law that appellant's employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident in question. Since the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee, we must affirm the judgment below if any reasonable inference from the facts supports the finding that the employee was acting in furtherance of appellant's business when he negligently injured appellee. See Davis v. Tredwell, 347 Pa. 341, 32 A.2d 411 (1943).
The facts reveal that Ambrose Mohan was employed as service manager by appellant automobile agency. In this capacity, one of his duties was to road-test vehicles which had been repaired in the shop. Although Mohan was provided with company automobiles for his daily transportation, he would often — with appellant's permission — drive home in a customer's automobile in order that he might test the car while driving to or from work.
On the day in question, a customer specifically requested Mohan to test his automobile. Mohan testified that he left the shop around 7:30 p.m. intending to road-test the car either that evening or the next morning on the way to work. On the way home, he stopped at a tavern spending approximately one hour there. The accident occurred about 9:15 p.m. while he was driving on his customary route home.
Appellant argues that since Mohan was not road-testing the automobile on his way home, he cannot be considered as acting in furtherance of appellant's business at the time of the accident. This contention was adequately answered by the court below as follows: "Even assuming that [Mohan] was not road-testing at the time of the accident, it is still reasonable to infer that he would have tested it on his way to work the next day. In that event taking it home was part of his job in that it would enable him to make the road-test in the morning on the way to his employer's place of business."
Judgment affirmed.