Legal Opinion

Ward v. Barringer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1931No. 22567PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJones, J.

The maxim, respondeat superior, does not apply here, for the relation of master and servant did not exist. Reeder was not the servant of Barringer. The latter had no control over Reeder in the operation of the truck, and Reeder so testified; nor could Barringer be considered as a mere guest of Reeder. Barringer’s relation to Reeder was contractual and his riding as a passenger in Reeder’s truck, for the purpose of pointing out the location of the stalled car, was incidental to the carrying out of his contract of hire entered into at Bucyrus. Reeder under the circumstances was required to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dowd v. Atlas Taxicab & Auto Service Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Bauer v. TougawWashington Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Bryden v. PriemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas Co. v. First Congregational ChurchOhio Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Gill, Jr., a Minor v. ArthurOhio Court of Appeals · 1941
  3. Spaulding v. MineahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  4. McMahan v. McMahanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1954
  5. Richmond v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Court of Claims · 1989

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

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

Powered by the Exa API