Legal Opinion
Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. Rucker
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided June 27, 1929No. 6 Div. 157PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The doctrine has many times been stated in recent Alabama eases that when plaintiff, in a damage suit for the negligent operation of a car, proves that the car causing the damage was owned by defendant, the law raises an administrative pre sumption that the one who was operating it was the owner’s agent, and was acting within the line and scope of his authority. Tullis v. Blue, 216 Ala. 577, 114 So. 185; Freeman v. So. Life & Health Ins. Co., 210 Ala. 459, 98 So., 461; Ford v. Hankins, 209 Ala. 202, 96 So. 349; Toranto v. Hattaway (6th Div. 287), 219 Ala. 520, 122 So. 816.
And it is also…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Parker v. WilsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Tullis v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Lawson v. Mobile Electric Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1920
- Gardiner v. SolomonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Ford v. HankinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Thompson v. HavardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1970
- Saums v. ParfetMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- Bertrand v. Mutual Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1931
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.