For Your Data Murrell V. Goertz Illustration Brief Summary
February 23, 2019
Edit
Murrell v. Goertz representative brief summary
F: Westbrook, non a political party to this action, was an independent paper distributor for Ok publishing (D). He employed Goertz (D) every bit an employee to deliver newspapers. However, Ok publishing had no noesis of Goert’s employment. When Goertz delivered the morning time paper to P, the declaration occurred, Goertz struck the plaintiff, who was the paper customer.
I: Whether an employer liable for the torts of an independent contractor
R: No, Employer is non liable for the torts of his independent contractor.
A: Ok Publishing did non accept the correct to command the travel of Goertz b/c he was an employee of Westbrook. OK publishing did non fifty-fifty know of Goertz existence. Thus, Goertz was an independent contractor together with non an employee of Ok publishing. OK publishing is non liable for his torts.
C: affirmed
Co: There tin hold out respondeat superior fifty-fifty for the intentional tort if it’s inside the orbit of employment
Independent contractor: 1 who engaged to perform a for certain service for only about other according to his ain methods together with manner, costless from command together with direction of his employer inward all matters connected amongst the functioning of the service except every bit to the upshot thereof.
Support us by:
•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing shop on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com
F: Westbrook, non a political party to this action, was an independent paper distributor for Ok publishing (D). He employed Goertz (D) every bit an employee to deliver newspapers. However, Ok publishing had no noesis of Goert’s employment. When Goertz delivered the morning time paper to P, the declaration occurred, Goertz struck the plaintiff, who was the paper customer.
I: Whether an employer liable for the torts of an independent contractor
R: No, Employer is non liable for the torts of his independent contractor.
A: Ok Publishing did non accept the correct to command the travel of Goertz b/c he was an employee of Westbrook. OK publishing did non fifty-fifty know of Goertz existence. Thus, Goertz was an independent contractor together with non an employee of Ok publishing. OK publishing is non liable for his torts.
C: affirmed
Co: There tin hold out respondeat superior fifty-fifty for the intentional tort if it’s inside the orbit of employment
Independent contractor: 1 who engaged to perform a for certain service for only about other according to his ain methods together with manner, costless from command together with direction of his employer inward all matters connected amongst the functioning of the service except every bit to the upshot thereof.
Support us by:
•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing shop on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com