Legal Opinion

Harris v. Oro-Dam Constructors

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 20, 1969No. Civ. 11721PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFriedman, J.

In this wrongful death action the jury returned a verdict against Byers, the defendant automobile driver. Plaintiffs appeal, because the jury exonerated OroDam Constructors, his employer. At the time of the collision Byers had completed his daily work shift and was driving his own automobile on a direct homeward journey, Although the “going and coming rule” ordinarily insulates the employer from liability for the negligent driving of an employee enroute to or from work, plaintiffs contend that the employer’s payment of Byers’ travel expenses excludes the going and coming rule as a matter of…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. Richards v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Robinson v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1992
  4. Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API