Cromwell

The following statement is taken from appellant’s opening brief:

The foregoing statement, commendably frank and fair, relieves the court of the necessity of passing upon any question except the single one of whether the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that Groth was acting outside the scope sof his employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiff testified:

Another witness testified:

Both of the conductors testified that Boehm was relieved by Groth at Fifth and Spring Streets and that the former “continued to collect fares and issue transfers on the car from Third street to Fifth street.”

It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that the foregoing evidence is insufficient to warrant the inference that Groth boarded the car at Third Street for the purpose of there relieving Boehm and that the former immediately took charge of the car. The question to be determined on this appeal, for the purposes of the appeal, is whether Groth, in boarding the car for the purpose stated, was acting within the scope of his employment. Appellant cites cases arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to the effect that while an employee is traveling to and from his place of employment he…