Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
A flatbed trailer separated from the pickup truck towing it and collided with the Ps' vehicle. Maimone, employed by Lockheed (D) as a maintenance mechanic, was the driver as well as the owner of both the truck and the trailer. One of Maimone's tasks was to hay the fields at D's facilities. Maimone provided most of the haying equipment, most of which he towed to D's premises with his truck and trailer. D did not compensate Maimone for the use of the equipment or the time spent transporting it but did pay him his normal wages while haying the fields and permitted him to keep any hay he removed. Maimone hitched his trailer to his truck for use in transporting hay from his farm to the Agway store to sell that evening. He planned to return the trailer to remove the remaining farm machinery. The trailer separated from the truck during the drive from D's facility to Maimone's farm. Ps sued D under theories of respondeat superior and negligent supervision in that Maimone was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. D moved for summary judgment because Maimone was not acting within the scope of his employment. Ps also moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that, as a matter of law, Maimone's actions were within the scope of his employment. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Maimone acted outside the scope of his employment. The court dismissed, and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co