All v. Delaware & Hudson Railroad
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.
The liability imputed to the defendant in each of these actions is based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, and under this theory it is alleged that the defendant is responsible for the acts of negligence of its employee Scrafford, against whom recovery has already been had by each of these plaintiffs. This defendant and Scrafford are not joint tort feasors. (Wolf v. Kenyon, 242 App. Div. 116, 119.) It was there held that a verdict in favor of the master barred a further action against the servant for the same cause. (See, also, Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., 211 N. Y. 228.) The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barrett v. . the Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. EmeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Livingston v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Pangburn v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1914
- McNamara v. ChapmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1923
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cunard Line Ltd. v. AbneyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1982
- Aldridge v. FoxAppellate Court of Illinois · 1952
- Hinton v. Iowa National Mutual Insurance CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
- Goines v. Pennsylvania RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- Marshall v. Estate of ChapmanWashington Supreme Court · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.