Legal Opinion

Griffith v. v. A. Simrell & Son Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1931No. Appeal, 56PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Schaeeee,

By a divided court it was determined that the relation of master and servant did not exist between Bowie, the driver of the automobile which killed plaintiff’s husband, and the defendant summoned in this action to respond in damages therefor, or, if that relation existed, the driver at the time was not engaged in his employer’s business. Appellee not only affirms the correctness of these conclusions but advances the further argument that it was not shown that the driver of the car was in any wise negligent. Plaintiff recovered a verdict for «|10,500, which the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simpson v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  2. Wallace v. Keystone Automobile Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  3. Zondler v. Foster Mfg. & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  4. Petruska v. Packard Motor Car Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Reed v. BennettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Harke v. HaaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
  2. Mulheirn v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Bertinelli v. GaloniSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  4. Campbell v. FiorotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Cook v. Miller Transport Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

15 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