Hunter v. Modern Continental Construction Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was evidence that “special circumstances” existed, such that the issue of respondeat superior could proceed to a jury
• saying that an employer cannot be held liable for an accident that occurs while an employee is traveling to or from work unless “special circumstances” exist, and concluding that such circumstances existed
• reversing summary judgment in favor of defendant because plaintiff “came forward with evidence showing that [defendant’s employee] may have been on his cell phone regarding company business when the accident occurred”
• factual question about whether employee was on cell phone with a co-worker during commute to work raised jury question about special circumstances exception
• where evidence showed that, at the time of the accident, the employee may have been on a work-related cell phone call or distracted by such a call that he chose not to answer, a jury question remained as to the employer’s liability for its employee’s actions
• although employee was not on a special mission when traveling to work, evidence that he was taking a business call on his cell phone at the time of the accident was sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of whether employee was acting in the scope of his employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).