Sauriolle v. O'Gorman
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtSnow, J.
I. A verdict was properly directed for the defendant O’Gorman. He was liable only if Shea, at the time of the accident, was engaged in doing what he was employed to do. Danforth v. Fisher, 75 N. H. 111. The limits of his authorization, his purpose and conduct are undisputed. His employment on his return trip was to take the ear from Concord to the master’s garage on Manchester street. When by direct route he had come to a point on that street within less than two blocks of his destination, instead of turning to the garage he embarked on a detour by Union street, Lake avenue, and Chestnut…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Stovall v. New York Indemnity Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Dickinson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Reilly v. . ConnableNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Odden v. Union Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1930
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Brower v. Employers' Liability Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
- Travelers Insurance v. GreenoughSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. HearnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Aetna Life Insurance v. ChandlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- Hooper v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.