Legal Opinion
Harless v. Nash
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided May 19, 1998No. 90085PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUETTNER, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Defendant/Appellee Weather-ford U.S., Inc. moved for summary judgment in its favor on the ground that any negligence, committed by its employee, Nash, oc*28curred while Nash was returning to work. Under the “going and coming rule,” an employer is not liable for damages caused by its employee who is merely going to or coming from work. The court certified the grant of summary judgment pursuant to 12 O.S. Supp.1995 § 994(A), finding no just reason, for delay in entering a final judgment. We affirm.
¶2 The motion for summary judgment, as well as the individual…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Falcon Drilling Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
- Skinner v. Braum's Ice Cream StoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Church v. ArkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Stroud Municipal Hospital v. MooneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- Conversions & Surveys, Inc. v. RoachCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Californians for an Open Primary v. McPhersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Albretsen v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2024
- Spencer v. V.I.P., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2006
- Spencer v. V.I.P., Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2006