Northrop v. Lopatka

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although an employer could be liable for the actions of a dental assistant through the doctrine of agency, her supervisor, the dentist, was not accountable, because, as her supervisor, he was a coworker and not an employer
• finding no vicarious liability between two agents of the same principal
• affidavit improper because affiant reached a “legal conclusion” that the standard of care was breached “without reciting any facts showing a breach”
• plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact by the conclusory affidavit of its expert
• “The common law does not impose strict liability on an employee who is merely the supervisor, but not the employer, of the employee who commits the tort.”
• plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact by the conclusory affidavit of its expert

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).