Legal Opinion

Chesterman v. Barmon

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1988No. 82-0538C; CA A35388; SC S33475PublishedCited by 99 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*441CARSON, J.

This case concerns the doctrine of respondeat superior. The question presented is whether a corporation may be held vicariously liable for an injury to a third party which results from an employee’s taking a drug.

The case comes before us for review of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Construction 80, Inc. (the corporation). On review, our task is not to decide whether the employee was negligent or, if he were negligent, whether the corporation is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Our only task is to decide whether, on the record before the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Seeborg v. General Motors CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Dickinson v. EdwardsWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Stanfield v. LaccoarceOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Stroud v. Denny's Restaurant, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Gossett v. SimonsonOregon Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by99 opinions

  1. Eric Allen Peterson v. Robert LampertCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. McGanty v. StaudenrausOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Donald Ray Wells v. Manfred Maass, Superintendent, Oregon State PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  4. Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1990
  5. Retherford v. AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1992

94 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