Here’s an interesting set of facts from a Tennessee Supreme Court case from 1918. For some reason I would just love to stage this scene with actors and costumes and props. And appropriate accents (see if you automatically take on an accent when you read the dialogue below)…
Paton was in the employ of the light company, and charged with the duty of inspecting all meters and seeing that they were kept in running condition. The coal company used two of the meters of Paton’s employer. Paton went to the plant of the coal company to inspect one of these meters, and on making known his business, Morehead opened the door of the building where the meter was located and let him into the building. Morehead says that he then asked Paton if there was anything wrong with the meter, observing that a man was sent there every few days; whereupon Paton began to curse, and asked, “What have you got to do with it?” and saying further, “I believe you coal men think we are thieves like all of you coal s____ of b____s,” in reply to which Morehead said, “I did not come down here to have trouble with you; I don’t know anything about you being a thief; I know I am not.” Paton then said to him, “Shut up, you black-faced s____ of a b____; you don’t know me; I am a Scotchman; I will kill you; I have got a gun; I will kill you;” at which time Morehead turned and walked away, meaning to go to the office to call up the Light Company, and have the meter taken out. He left Paton still working on the meter, and was not expecting him to follow. While he was on his way to the office, however, he heard some one talking behind him, and on glancing around he saw Paton approaching him running, and then within ten feet of him. When Paton got opposite Morehead, he turned facing Morehead and threw his own hands to his hip pocket, saying, “You black-faced s____ of a b____, I will kill you now,” drawing something out of his pocket. This was a meter seal. Morehead testifies that, thinking Paton had a pistol he fired in what he thought was his own self-defense…. According to the evidence of Morehead, he ceased shooting on Paton’s falling, and this is not contradicted.
Yeah. That’s from Hunt-Berlin Coal Co. v. Paton, 202 S.W. 935, 936 (Tenn. 1918). I plan to encourage mature discussion in a moment. But first, please bear with me while I stoop to seventh grade humor…
Okay. Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system (sorry, had to do it)…. What do we think about the Morehead mishap? Clean shoot? Jailhouse bound? Civilly liable? Both? And perhaps a trickier question: If Morehead is civilly liable, can his employer — the coal company — be held liable too? Can Morehead’s actions be imputed to his employer in civil court? Hmm….
You be the judge! And then later I’ll tell you what the actual judge said on that fateful day of reckoning in 1918.
Update!
So what ever happened to Mr. Morehead? Click here for the follow-up post…
So far most of you have said clean shoot, although there have been a few votes for throwing dude in jail and/or making him pay (and at least one person would hold the employer liable too). The answer is coming soon!
Oddly enough I vaguely recall reading this tort, but aside from that little else. In circa 1918 TN being called a black faced offspring of a female canine didn’t mean you were of Black descent. It was a pejorative applied to Irish, Italian, Middle Easterners and more. Generally speaking the least offensive thing an African- American might hear would be Black S.O.B. or Negro if the other party was racially tolerant and respected them. As to the outcome of the case this Mediator is looking forward to the closing statements counselor.
I, like Toastrider, think it should have been a clean shoot. It would be hard to argue that Paton’s actions weren’t threatening, and that his words weren’t meant to intimidate. The problem comes from the lack of witnesses, so we have only the word of the two men involved.
As for company liability, I don’t think there should be any on the defendant’s side. If any liability, it should fall on Paton’s side, since he was there to do a job and ended up attacking a man who was forced to defend himself. Were that me in Morehead’s situation, I would probably seek to punish his employer for hiring a man who attacked me while on the job.
Of course, how it really turns (or turned) out is entirely dependent upon how it was presented in the courtroom.
As an aside, I don’t think the references to “black face” in this instance were racial, but economic (coal mining is dirty and dangerous and was often looked down upon as poor, uneducated man’s work–it was an insult on the man’s station in life, I think. I could be wrong, but that’s the way it reads to me. I have family that were coal miners, so I’m biased in how I read it too.).
Ah! Just the kind of insight I was hoping for. Thanks for the perspective! -tgj 🙂
If I were on the jury Morehead would walk after utilizing an analysis based on ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Paton told Morehead he had a gun and intended to kill him. The law allows us to take Paton at his word and this satisfies the elements of ability and jeopardy. They were obviously close together so the element of opportunity is also satisfied. To cap it all off (before Paton that is), Morehead attempted to retreat and Paton pursued him. Even if Morehead is convicted, his employer should not be liable. Illegally shooting individuals was probably not in Morehead’s job description and therefore outside the scope of of expected liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Now we get to the chief problem in dealing with the “reasonable person” standard: juries may contain folks whose beliefs regarding deadly force are different from ours. Anything can happen!
Very true!
Then as now, what should be and what would be just ain’t always the same, eh GZ? Racism is racism. Off to the pokey, the both of ‘em.
Funny you should say that. That was my initial impression too, and I think that’s what Tam was getting at also. However, the case actually makes no reference to race. Do you think Morehead was black, or could “black-face” have been just a pejorative reference to a coal worker? Honest question – I don’t know the answer…
As I implied with the GZ reference, and as others have said since…despite common (and understandable referenced in the frame of more recent experience) perception, racism is not just about color. As the progeny of middle-Tennessee mutts (heavy on the Irish but Lord knows what else), it’s personal for me.
My vote here was that the individual but not the company was prosecuted. Like I said, not how it should be but likely how it would be…then as now. Tam’s “externalities”, though different, are prevalent still.
Sailors work worked in the engine rooms of ships were once referred to as “The Black Gang,” not because of race but because of how they looked after shoveling coal during watch. I doubt the black face reference was racial. There were other words that would have been used for that (that thankfully aren’t heard much anymore).
I have no idea what the law on self defense was then. Under modern law, definitely a justified shooting based on the facts presented. I somehow think there might have been damages paid but probably by the employer.
A vote for the employer! Intetesting…
In 1918 Tennessee, there are certain… externalities that might have bearing. 🙁 I’m not cheating by Googling, but can I ask if Mr. Morehead had any other witnesses to back up his testimony regarding the statements made by the decedent prior to the alleged attack?
Good question! Answer is no, no witnesses. Word against word…
Oh, and by the way, thanks for the shout-out, Tam! Whatever magic wand you waved has brought me a whole gaggle of new readers! 🙂
Clean shoot. Repeatedly declaiming ‘I have a gun’ and ‘You so and so, I will kill you now’ pretty much falls under ‘imminent threats’.
Stating ‘I will kill you now’ while pulling out a meter seal makes me wonder if either he was stupid, or he just grabbed the wrong gubbin out of his pocket.
One vote for Clean Shoot! Anybody else wanna join Toastrider?