Legal Opinion

Miller v. Salem Merchant Patrol, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 26, 2000No. 96C-14206; CA A100735PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKistler, J.

On summary judgment, the trial court ruled that defendant Salem Merchant Patrol, Inc., was not vicariously liable for its employee’s assault on plaintiff. The court accordingly entered judgment in defendant’s favor. We affirm.

Because this case arises on defendant’s summary judgment motion, we state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See Olson v. F & D Publishing Co., Inc., 160 Or App 582, 584, 982 P2d 556 (1999). Defendant provides private security services to clients within the Salem area. Among other things, its uniformed officers patrol clients’ premises, inspect clients’…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. HitzOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Chesterman v. BarmonOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. G. L. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Fearing v. BucherOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. R & C. RANCH, LLC v. KundeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. Hanson v. Versarail Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  3. Piskorski v. Ron Tonkin Toyota, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. Barns v. City of EugeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  5. Vertopoulos v. Siskiyou Silicates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

3 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