Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Bounds v. Travelers Insurance
Citations: 242 Ark. 787; 416 S.W.2d 298; 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1322Docket: 5-4237
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 5, 1967; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Travelers Insurance Company, concluding that the earlier case, Reynolds v. Bounds, established that Davidson was not acting as an employee of Reynolds-Williams at the time of the accident. In that case, Davidson drove a Reynolds-Williams truck for servicing and subsequently collided with the Boundses' vehicle. The Boundses sued Davidson, Smith, and Reynolds-Williams, claiming Davidson was acting as an agent of Reynolds-Williams during the accident. However, the court determined that Davidson was a bailee of the truck, not an employee, thus overturning the judgment against Reynolds-Williams. In the current case, Davidson sought coverage under Travelers’ insurance policy, asserting he was driving the truck with permission and was therefore an insured. Travelers denied coverage based on a policy exclusion for service station operations. Davidson provided an affidavit claiming the accident was not related to his service station operations, as he was returning the truck as a favor and received no compensation, which was contrary to his usual business practice. The court found no disputed facts, agreeing that the accident arose from Davidson's operation of the service station, resulting in no coverage under the policy. The Boundses' appeal was based on a hypothetical scenario regarding unanswered issues from the first case, but the court clarified that only two possibilities existed regarding Davidson's status during the accident, confirming he was acting as a bailee. Travelers was not named as a defendant in the initial case but was considered a real party in interest. In situations where an injured plaintiff sues a master or servant for negligence, and it is established that the servant acted within the scope of employment, the plaintiff cannot pursue a second suit against the other party if they lose the first. This principle is supported by the precedent set in Davis v. Perryman, which states that a plaintiff cannot relitigate the negligence issue. Additionally, in Berry v. Travelers Ins. Co., the court ruled that a claim against Travelers was barred due to policy exclusions related to service station operations, affirming that the service station operator could not retry the agency question for the vehicle owner. The decision in Berry is deemed sound and is affirmed.