Skip to main content

Oaks v. Connors

Citations

  • 339 Md. 24
  • 660 A.2d 423
  • 1995 Md. LEXIS 86

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding that the fact that employee used his car at work for the employer’s benefit did not render the drive to work “special circumstances” warranting respondeat superior liability
  • “Driving to and from work is generally not considered to be within the scope of a servant’s employment.... ” (emphasis added)
  • “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.”
  • “The ‘right to control’ concept is key to a respondeat superior analysis in the motor vehicle context.”
  • “[A] loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured spouse’s claim for personal injury[.]”
  • “[A] consortium claim must be filed jointly by a couple and tried concurrently with the claim of the physically injured spouse in order to avoid duplication of awards.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

178 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced 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.