Brenner v. Ford
Citations
- 116 La. 550
- 40 So. 894
- 1906 La. LEXIS 533
Syllabus
<p>Master and Servant—Torts of Servant-Liability of Master.</p> <p>The son of the plaintiffs was killed by being run over by a horse and vehicle recklessly driven by a man in the employ of the defendants. Plaintiffs charged that the act was committed by the employé while engaged in the exercise of the functions in which he was employed. The employé was not engaged as a driver, but as a groom and stableman. Taking advantage of the absence of his employer from the city of Shreveport he; for his own pleasure, in disobedience of positive prohibitory orders given at the time of his employment and continued to be given thereafter, hitched the horse to a buggy and drove her, outside of and contrary to the terms of his employment. The employé could not possibly have made a mistake on that subject. Even had he believed that subsequent instructions justified him in driving the horse, his belief to that effect was not justified by the facts. The claim against the defendant is not well founded.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 1217-1220, 1224.]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting a futility argument because “[i]n the context of this case, that question is more suitable for determination either in summary judgment proceedings or at trial.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Convicted, Defendant, Land, Negligence, Nicholls, Servant, Takes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.