East Ohio Gas Co. v. Fondas
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtParr, J.
It is not claimed here that the Company ever authorized the use of the car except by implication. It is conceded that his contract of hire did not involve the use of the car. True, the Gas Company had employes who used cars or motor vehicles about their work, but it is claimed that when the company instructed a new employe, that it instructed such new employe not to use an automobile. The automobile in question was purchased by Chismer. It was owned by him. There is no direct testimony in this record going to show that the Company knew that he owned a car. Matt Young, the claim agent, did not…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goldsmith v. ChesebroughCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1921
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. RobbinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Mouser v. Pub Utilities CommOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pantall v. Shriver-Allison Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938