Anderson v. Falcon Drilling Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting the different considerations between “an injury compensable in workers’ compensation cases,” and “finding an employer liable for tortious injuries to others”
• noting the different considerations between “an injury compensable in workers’ compensation cases,” and “finding an employer liable for tortious injuries to others”
• finding issue of fact as to scope of employment were evidence showed “the driver … was required by the driller, his immediate supervisor, to car pool,” that the accident occurred “as a result of the car pooling arrangement” given the route involved
• stating it could be reasonably concluded that an employee required by an employer to car pool was within the scope of employment as the car pooling requirement was of benefit to the employer's operations \in that it facilitated smooth changeovers of drilling shifts\
• stating it could be reasonably concluded that an employee required by an employer to car pool was within the scope of employment as the car pooling requirement was of benefit to the employer's operations \in that it facilitated smooth changeovers of drilling shifts\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).