HINMAN V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO. 471 P.2d 988 (1970) CASE BRIEF

HINMAN V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO.

471 P.2d 988 (1970)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Hinman (P), injury victim and intervenor, City of Los Angeles, appealed the judgment from the Superior Court, which entered a judgment in favor of Westinghouse (D), employer after a jury verdict and from an order denying motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict in P's lawsuit against D due to the alleged negligence of D's employee.

FACTS: P, a policeman, was standing on the center divider of a freeway inspecting a possible road hazard when he was struck by a car driven by Herman, an employee of D. P received permanent injuries. The city paid his medical expenses and disability pension. Herman was employed by D as an elevator constructor's helper and was returning home from work from a job site. He did not go to the office before or after work but instead went from home directly to the job site and after work returned home from the job site. Union contracts provided for the payment of 'carfare' and travel time. Herman received an hour and a half per day as his round-trip travel time and $1.30 for his travel expense. D had no control over the method or route of transportation used by Herman. The trial judge refused instructions that Herman was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The judge instructed the jury that whether Herman was acting within the scope of his employment depended upon a number of factors: 'whether his conduct was authorized by his employer, either expressly or impliedly; the nature of the employment, its object and the duties imposed thereby; whether the employee was acting in his discharge thereof; whether his conduct occurred during the performance of services for the benefit of the employer, either directly or indirectly, or of himself; whether his conduct, even though not expressly or impliedly authorized, was an incidental event connected with his assigned work; and many other things besides the time and place of performance of his duties as an employee.' The jury found for D. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner