Hirst

Hirst v. Morris & Co.

Good Law
45 Cal. App. 358·187 P. 770
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 1919Civ. No. 3193.California1,441 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment against them for three thousand dollars in an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when the bicycle he was riding collided with an automobile being driven in the city of Los Angeles by the defendant Schneider.

[1] Morris & Company was joined as a defendant upon the theory that Schneider was in its employ at the time of the accident and was in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. We shall consider first the contention of appellant Morris & Company that the negligence of Schneider, if any, cannot be imputed to it, because Schneider at the time of the accident, was not acting within the scope of his employment. The evidence upon this question is uncontradicted. It consists in a contract between the defendants, covering the ownership of the automobile involved in the case and the employment of Schneider by Morris & Company, together with the testimony of Schneider himself with regard to his employment and duties. Prom the written contract between the defendants, introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, it appears that the automobile which was being driven by Schneider had been purchased by him from…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.