Fruit v. Schreiner

502 P.2d 133

 

RULE:

Any determination of whether or not an employee is acting within the scope of the employee's scope of employment is a decision for the jury, and is determined based on the facts of each case.

FACTS:

Appellant was required to attend a sales convention held by employer. Appellant was encouraged to mix with other insurance employees. Appellant drove to a bar to look for people, but found none. On his drive back, he struck a vehicle driven by appellee. Appellee's legs were crushed. He brought a personal injury claim against both the Appellant. The jury found that Appellant was an employee acting within the scope of his employment and that Appellee's employer should be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Appellee and appellee's employer appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find that the employee was acting in the scope of the employee's employment.

ANSWER:

Yes, sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find that the employee was acting in the scope of the employee's employment.

CONCLUSION:

In upholding the lower court's ruling, the Court ruled that the jury had sufficient evidence to find that appellee was not contributorily negligent and that appellant salesman was acting within the scope of his employment. However, the jury had insufficient evidence to find the employer directly liable.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.