Eadie v. H.A. Sack Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding an error not shown to be prejudicial does not constitute grounds for reversal
• recognizing the “special errand” exception to the “going and coming rule”
• stating the employee's personal vehicle was a pickup truck that he used on the job site for work-related purposes, which benefitted the employer
• involving payment in lieu of a company vehicle because none were available, which the court found was equivalent to providing a company vehicle
• finding a deliberate and substantial provision of transportation because the employer paid its employee for providing his own transportation an amount intended to defray all travel costs
• explaining an error by the commission should be prejudicial to warrant reversal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).