Levi v. Brooks
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Miller v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Mass. 1973)
- El-Em Seafood Transport Co. v. Gahagan (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1961)
- Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Long (Tex. App. 1915)
- McIntyre v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2006)
- Estate of Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. United States (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2004)
- Howard v. Town of Burlington (Mass. 1987)
- Dwyer v. Hearst Corp. (Mass. App. Ct. 1975)
- Miller v. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Mass. App. Ct. 1973)
- Hobart v. Cavanaugh (Mass. 1967)
- Staikovisky v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston Municipal Court 1965)
- Rego v. Thomas Brothers Corp. (Mass. 1960)
- Curran v. Dorchester Theatre Co. (Mass. 1941)
- Suárez v. Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
- Suárez Viuda de Arroyo v. Saavedra Soler (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1938)
- Fanciullo v. B. G. & S. Theatre Corp. (Mass. 1937)
- Kees v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co. (Mass. 1937)
- Robertson v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (N.C. 1933)
- Dickerson v. . Refining Co. (N.C. 1931)
- Ciarmataro v. Adams (Mass. 1931)
- Dickerson v. Atlantic Refining Co. (N.C. 1931)
- Zerngis v. H. P. Hood & Sons (Mass. 1926)
- Son v. Hartford Ice Cream Co. (Conn. 1925)
- Douglas v. Holyoke Machine Co. (Mass. 1919)
- Ange v. Woodmen of the World (N.C. 1917)
- Veneruso v. Spear & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The instructions given at the trial were in ac • cordance with the decision of this court in Howe v. Hewmarch, 12 Allen, 49. The evidence tended to show that three persons, who were servants of the defendants, committed an assault upon each of the plaintiffs, and that such assaults were committed in the execution of the authority given them by the defendants, and for the purpose and as a means of carrying out their orders.
The ground taken by the defendants, that the master is not liable for a wilful trespass committed by the servant, cannot be sustained. The test of the liability of the master is, that the act of the servant is done in the course of doing the master’s work, and for the purpose of accomplishing it. If so done it is the act of the master, and he is responsible “ whether the wrong done be occasioned by negligence, or by a wanton and reckless purpose to accomplish the master’s business in an unlawful manner.” Howe v. Newmarch, ubi supra, and cases cited. Barden v. Felch, 109 Mass. 154. Hawes v. Knowles, 114 Mass. 518.
The court properly submitted the case to the jury under instructions to which there is no ground of exception.
The court also rightly ruled that the defence of a justification was not open to the defendants under their answer, it being merely a general denial. Snow v. Chatfield, 11 Gray, 12.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.