
    (First. Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court
    Jan’y Term, 1897.
    Before Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.
    JOHN A. LLOYD v. THE NELSON BUSINESS COLLEGE.
    The fact that the act of a servant resulting in an injury may have been malicious, and one for which he is liable to criminal prosecution, does not prevent the master from being liable for damages for such act.*
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    The plaintiff in error, while standing upon a step-ladder, repairing the chandeliers in the defendant’s school room, was violently thrown to the floor and injured by the pushing of the ladder from under him by the janitor, cleaning the room. The present suit ■ is for damages on account of the wrongful act of the janitor. At the trial below an instructed verdict was returned for the defendant, on the ground that the act of the janitor was malicious, and not within the scope of his employment,
    
      Wm. E. Bundy, and Wm. M. Eames, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      W. C. Cochran, contra.
   Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that the court of common pleas erred in instructing the jury at the close of the evidence offered by the plaintiff below to return a verdict for the defendant.

The evidence so offered tended strongly to show that the injury to the plaintiff resulted from the wrongful conduct of the agent of the defendant company, “when acting within the scope of his employment and in the execution of the service for which he was engaged by the master;” and the case should have been submitted to the jury. The fact that the servant may have acted maliciously, and thus made himself liable to a criminal prosecution, does not prevent the master from being liable for damages for such act. 36 Bull., 327.

The verdict was against the evidence, and a new trial should have been granted. The judgment will, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and á new trial awarded.  