Friday, October 10, 2014

Murrell v. Goertz case brief summary

Murrell v. Goertz case brief summary
F: Westbrook, not a party to this action, was an independent newspaper distributor for Ok publishing (D). He employed Goertz (D) as an employee to deliver newspapers. However, Ok publishing had no knowledge of Goert’s employment. When Goertz delivered the morning newspaper to P, the argument occurred, Goertz struck the plaintiff, who was the newspaper customer.

I: Whether an employer liable for the torts of an independent contractor

R: No, Employer is not liable for the torts of his independent contractor.

A: Ok Publishing did not have the right to control the work of Goertz b/c he was an employee of Westbrook. OK publishing did not even know of Goertz existence. Thus, Goertz was an independent contractor and not an employee of Ok publishing. OK publishing is not liable for his torts.

C: affirmed

Co: There can be respondeat superior even for the intentional tort if it’s within the scope of employment
Independent contractor: one who engaged to perform a certain service for another according to his own methods and manner, free from control and direction of his employer in all matters connected with the performance of the service except as to the result thereof.

Support us by: 
•Visiting: to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing store on Etsy:

No comments:

Post a Comment