D'Allesandro v. Bentivoglia

131 A. 592, 285 Pa. 72, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 402
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 25, 1925
DocketAppeals, 330 and 331
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 131 A. 592 (D'Allesandro v. Bentivoglia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
D'Allesandro v. Bentivoglia, 131 A. 592, 285 Pa. 72, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 402 (Pa. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the refusal of the court below to remove a nonsuit.

On Saturday, November 24, 1923, the minor plaintiff, over 14 years of age, was at his father’s place of business, when an automobile truck of the defendants called for a load of material. The driver, not knowing the route to his next stopping place, asked the boy to guide him. There being no room on the seat, the lad took a position on the running board and the truck proceeded on its way. The driver made a sharp turn to avoid a collision with another automobile, and in so doing the boy was thrown to the street and injured.

Entirely aside from the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in riding on the running board of a moving motor car, we agree with the court below that an “employer is liable only for the acts of his servant done in the scope of his employment, and the employment in this case did not include taking the minor plaintiff for a ride” either as “a passenger,’’ which the statement of claim alleges he was, or as an assistant *74 (Byrne v. Pittsburgh B. Co., 259 Pa. 357, 361; see also Hughes v. Murdoch S. & T. Co., 269 Pa. 222); for no such emergency is shown by the record before us as would warrant the driver of the truck in imposing the responsibility of an employer of the minor plaintiff on defendant. Unless an emergency is shown where the servant is unable alone to perform the work which he was engaged to do, authority to employ an assistant is not proved: Byrne v. Pittsburgh B. Co., supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Muroski v. Hnath
139 A.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Slother v. Jaffe
51 A.2d 747 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Russell Ex Rel. Russell v. Cutshall
26 S.E.2d 866 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Fritz v. Smith
46 Pa. D. & C. 269 (Perry County Court of Common Pleas, 1942)
White v. Consumers Finance Service, Inc.
15 A.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Bonzik
105 F.2d 341 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Jacamino v. Harrison Motor Freight Co.
5 A.2d 393 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Marschall v. Glaeser
278 N.W. 763 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Tusko Et Ux. v. Lynett
192 A. 410 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Yatsun v. Chuprun
19 Pa. D. & C. 52 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 1932)
Corbin v. George
162 A. 459 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Collins v. Rosenberg
161 A. 580 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
White v. Brainerd Service Motor Co.
232 N.W. 626 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1930)
Zavodnick v. Rose Son
148 A. 455 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1929)
Hartigan v. Public Ledger
140 A. 524 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Schomaker v. Havey
139 A. 495 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A. 592, 285 Pa. 72, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallesandro-v-bentivoglia-pa-1925.