Legal Opinion
Plost v. Avondale Motor Car Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided October 14, 1935No. 4857PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By ROSS, PJ.
This constituted all the evidence affecting the question involving the business relationship of the salesman to the defendant. In our opinion it is not sufficient to show any contractual right to control the actions of the salesman at the time the injuries were inflicted such as is necessary to establish responsibility for such acts upon the defendant. Restatement of the law of Agency, §220, et sed- §220 provides:
“(1) A servant is a person employed to perform service for another in his affairs and who, with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the service,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Post Pub. Co. v. SchicklingOhio Court of Appeals · 1926
- Dayton Biscuit Co. v. AerniOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cushman Motor Delivery Co. v. BernickOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
- In re the Hearing of Electrolux Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Kraemer v. Bates Motor Transport Lines, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Blanche Cooke and Arthur J. Cooke v. E. F. Drew & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Blanche Cooke and Arthur J. Cooke v. E. F. Drew & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963