Legal Opinion

Sinclair v. Perma-Maid Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 12, 1942No. Appeals, 174 and 175PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice S chaffer,

Plaintiffs were injured when struck by an automobile owned and driven by Paul M. Owen. He was a salesman, selling cooking appliances for defendant. His remuneration was solely by a commission on the articles sold. Is defendant responsible in damages for his lack of care? The trial court and the Superior Court determined it is.

Owen came into defendant’s employ as a result of a newspaper advertisement, which read in part: “Men with cars. The Philadelphia Office of the Perma-Maid Co. . . . Men with the following qualifications: must have car; twenty-five or…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wesolowski v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  2. Gittelman v. Hoover CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  3. Holdsworth v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  4. Loper Et Ux. v. P. G. Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  5. Heinrich v. Pict. Rev. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gozdonovic v. Pleasant Hills Realty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Kimble v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  3. Cesare v. ColeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Kadlecik v. Renault & Sons, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  5. Morris Et Ux. v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API