Lotz v. Hanlon
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 255, Jan. T., 1906, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 1,563, on verdict for defendant in case of Caspar Lotz v. Felix L. Hanlon. Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Audenried, J. The court gave binding instructions for defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for defendant. ,
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
It was essential to a recovery in this case that it be made to appear that the accident from which plaintiff’s injury resulted occurred while the person in charge of the automobile was using it in the course of his employment, and on his master’s business. Plaintiff offered no direct evidence as to this, but having shown the ownership of the machine to be in the defendant, sought to derive from this circumstance, and this alone, not only the fact that the person in charge was defend*341ant’s servant, but the further fact that he was at the time engaged on the…
2Cited by68 opinions
- Birch v. AbercrombieWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Griffin v. RussellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- Fielder v. DavisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Daily v. MaxwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- McNeal v. McKainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.