Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, a policeman, was standing on the center divider of a freeway inspecting a possible road hazard when he was struck by a car driven by Herman, an employee of D. P received permanent injuries. The city paid his medical expenses and disability pension. Herman was employed by D as an elevator constructor's helper and was returning home from work from a job site. He did not go to the office before or after work but instead went from home directly to the job site and after work returned home from the job site. Union contracts provided for the payment of 'carfare' and travel time. Herman received an hour and a half per day as his round-trip travel time and $1.30 for his travel expense. D had no control over the method or route of transportation used by Herman. The trial judge refused instructions that Herman was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The judge instructed the jury that whether Herman was acting within the scope of his employment depended upon a number of factors: 'whether his conduct was authorized by his employer, either expressly or impliedly; the nature of the employment, its object and the duties imposed thereby; whether the employee was acting in his discharge thereof; whether his conduct occurred during the performance of services for the benefit of the employer, either directly or indirectly, or of himself; whether his conduct, even though not expressly or impliedly authorized, was an incidental event connected with his assigned work; and many other things besides the time and place of performance of his duties as an employee.' The jury found for D. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co