De Nezzo v. General Baking Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.
Plaintiff’s intestate was killed by an automobile owned by the defendant corporation and being operated at the time of the accident by one of its employees, Bernier. The sole contention of the defendant upon this appeal is that Bernier was not at the time acting within the scope of his employment..
The jury might have found the following facts: The defendant is engaged in the baking business and at its Hartford plant produces bread in large quantities. Its employees work in shifts and Bernier was foreman of a shift which worked during the latter part of the night and the early morning. He was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Son v. Hartford Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Loomis v. HollisterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Gibson v. DupreeColorado Court of Appeals · 1914
- Russo v. McAvineySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Stuart v. DoyleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
3Cited by10 opinions
- Blakeslee v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Altieri v. Peattie Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Haining v. Turner Centre SystemSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1930
- Wright v. Globe Porcelain Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
- Shiembob v. RinglingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.