Friday, March 23, 2012

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin case brief, Hoover v. Sun Oil Company case brief, Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc. case brief, Billops v. Magness Construction Co. case brief, Manning v. Grimsley case brief, Arguello v. Conoco, Inc. case brief, Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States case brief

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin case brief (Tex. 1949) (p.48)
The fact that the proprietor of the gas station in question did not consider himself
to be controlled by Humble is not dispositive. Must look at actual content of the
relationship.
Terms of the agreement between Humble and the proprietor are evidence.

Hoover v. Sun Oil Company case brief (Del. 1965) (p.50)
Non-binding advice by the agent of a franchiser does not in itself constitute a master-
servant relationship.
Control over details of day-to-day operations is the key test.

Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc. case brief (Va. 1975) (p.53)
Franchising is a common business form. Status of franchisee as independent
contractor should be recognized by courts.
Regulatory provisions of a typical licensing contract do not constitute a master-
servant relationship.
Control of details of the work still the test.

Billops v. Magness Construction Co. case brief (Del.Sup. 1978) (p.58)
Test is whether the franchiser is merely ‘setting standards’ or actually exerting control
over daily operations.
Can be ‘apparent agency’ in tort if the litigant can show reliance on the indicia of
authority originated by the principal. Such reliance must be reasonable.

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States case brief (2d Cir. 1968) (p.61)
Test of scope of employment is whether the principal could have reasonably foreseen
that “arise out of and in the course of” agent’s employment.
Activities of the enterprise do not reach into areas where the servant does not create
risks different from those attendant on the activities of the community in general.

Manning v. Grimsley case brief (1st Cir. 1981) (p.66)
Test of whether an employer is liable for an employee’s assault: did the plaintiff’s
activity interfere with the employee’s ability to perform his duties successfully.

Arguello v. Conoco, Inc. case brief (5th Cir. 2000) (p.69)
Factors used in determining scope of employment include:
o Time, place, and purpose of the act
o Similarity to acts which the servant is authorized to perform
o Whether the act is commonly performed by servants
o The extent of departure from normal methods
o Whether the master would reasonably expect such act would be performed

Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co.case brief (N.J. 1959) (p.76)
Person is not normally liable for the negligent actions of a contractor involving work
that is not in itself a nuisance. Exceptions are:
o When landowner retains control of the manner and means of doing the work
which is the subject of the contract
o Where the landowner engages an incompetent contractor
o Activity is a nuisance per se
Landowner is liable for work that creates an inherently dangerous situation

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...