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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment