Beatty v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Beatty v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

106 A. 303, 263 Pa. 271, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 415

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 4, 1919·No. Appeal, No. 124·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Under the undisputed facts in this case, set forth in the opinion of the learned court below denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, Dunlap, a chauffeur of the defendant company, was clearly not upon his master’s business, but on business or pleasure purely of his own, when the truck he was driving collided with the automobile in which the appellants were passengers, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

Under the undisputed facts in this case, set forth in the opinion of the learned court below denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, Dunlap, a chauffeur of the defendant company, was clearly not upon his master’s business, but on business or pleasure purely of his own, when the truck he was driving collided with the automobile in which the appellants were passengers, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Beatty v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 106 A. 303, 263 Pa. 271, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 415 (Pa. 1919).

Pincite

106 A. 303 (Beatty v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related