Tindall v. Enderle

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the “sole possible advantage to the pursuit of a negligent hiring theory in cases such as that before us would be the potential assessment of punitive darm ages
• affirming trial court's exclusion of evidence pertaining to negligent hiring claim and stating that \[t]he sole possible advantage to the pursuit of a negligent hiring theory in [vicarious liability] cases . . . would be the potential assessment of punitive dam- ages\
• “Proof of negligence by the employee on the particular occasion at issue is a common element to the theories of respondeat superior and negligent hiring.”
• evidence of negligent hiring not admissible when employer stipulates that employee was acting within scope of employment so that employer is subject to liability under doctrine of respondeat superior
• “Proof of negligence by the employee on the particular occasion at issue is a common element to the theories of respondeat superior and negligent hiring.”
• evidence of negligent hiring not admissible when employer stipulates that employee was acting within scope of employment so that employer is subject to liability under doctrine of respondeat superior

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).