Legal Opinion

Zondler v. Foster Mfg. & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1923No. Appeals, Nos. 114 and 115PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

Plaintiffs must prove not only that the automobile was owned by defendant and the driver was one of its employees (facts here admitted), but was used by authority on defendant’s business: Scheel v. Shaw, 252 Pa. 451, 460; Farbo v. Caskey, 272 Pa. 573, 576. Where a member of a partnership orders a car to be used in .connection with its business, or himself so uses it, the firm will be liable for an injury happening through negligent operation in course of such use: Treon v. Shipman & Son, 275 Pa. 246, 249. The same result will follow if express or implied…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Scheel v. ShawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
  2. Farbo v. CaskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  3. Blaker v. Philadelphia Electric Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Treon v. ShipmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Meyn v. Dulaney-Miller Auto Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Nelson v. Stutz Chicago Factory Branch, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Griffith v. v. A. Simrell & Son Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Clark v. FeldmanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Loper Et Ux. v. P. G. Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933

7 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