Clooney v. Geeting

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court did not err in striking plaintiff’s negligent hiring, employment, and entrustment claims against employer where employer acknowledged vicarious liability for employee’s negligence
• holding that trial court did not err in striking plaintiff’s negligent hiring, employment, and entrustment claims against employer where employer acknowledged vicarious liability for employee’s negligence
• finding that “[w]here [direct employer negligence] theories impose no additional liability in a motor vehicle accident case, a trial court should not allow them to be presented to the jury”
• asserting that “[s]ince the [direct negligence] counts impose no additional liability but merely allege a concurrent theory of recovery, the desirability of allowing these theories is outweighed by the prejudice to the defendants”
• asserting that “[s]ince the [counts asserting derivative theories] impose no additional liability but merely allege a concurrent theory of recovery, the desirability of allowing these theories is outweighed by the prejudice to the defendants”
• allowing an employee to drive a company truck, while knowing that he was not physically or mentally capable of driving the truck properly, was insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages arising out of a resulting accident

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).