Barfield v. Royal Ins. Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting employee’s sworn statements that he was in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident because employee made statements after employer fired him and not contemporaneously with accident
• employee’s disobedience to company rules or criminal laws does not necessarily insulate employer from liability
• in which the test under a permissive use clause was an objective one and did not involve the question of whether the driver reasonably believed he had the owner’s permission to drive after drinking
• employee was driving vehicle owned by employer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).