Mulvehill v. Bates
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul. The case is stated in the opinion. To render a master liable for the negligence of his servant, the injury complained of must have occurred while the servant was acting in the scope of his employment, and in the actual course of his employment.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul. The case is stated in the opinion. To render a master liable for the negligence of his servant, the injury complained of must have occurred while the servant was acting in the scope of his employment, and in the actual course of his employment. Mitchell v. Crassweller, 13 C. B. 237; Storey v. Ashton, L. R. 4 Q. B. 476; Rayner v. Mitchell, L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 357; Douglass v. Stephens, 18 Mo. 362; Moore v. Sanborne, 2 Mich. 519; Courtney v. Baker, 37 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 249; Sheridan v. Charlick, 4 Daly, (N. Y.) 338; Lee v.…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of defendant’s servant in driving over and injuring the child of plaintiff. The important question in the case is whether, at the time the injury was inflicted, the servant was acting within the scope of his employment, or had turned aside from that employment, and was acting exclusively for himself as master pro *365tempore. All the evidence bearing on this point is “that Esterbrook (the servant) drove an express wagon regularly for defendant. He picked up business on the street.” On the day in question “he had. gone over to…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Barmore v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- Crowell v. DuncanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1926
- Slater v. Advance Thresher Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Grantham v. OrdwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- McKiernan v. LehmaierSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1911
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.