Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

Sixth Circuit

Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

252 F.2d 48, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 111

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 19, 1958

DocketNo. 13289

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 F.2d 48 (Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 252 F.2d 48, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 111 (6th Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding that a liability insurance policy issued to Earl Schott Inc., did not obligate the insurer with respect to claims against Norman Stephen Sr., or Norman Stephen Jr., growing out of a collision on June 12, 1955, in which an automobile was involved which the latter was driving. The judgment was rendered upon stipulated facts.

Ean Schott, Inc., w'as an automobile dealer, and at the time of the collision the Ohio certificate of title to the vehicle in question was in Schott’s name. A sale of the car to Norman Stephen, Sr., had been negotiated, however, and Schott had delivered possession of it to him. Stephen had made a small down-payment toward the purchase price, and arrangements had been made for extension of credit on the balance. Stephen had signed a note and chattel mortgage.

We perceive no error in the judgment of the district court. It appears that under Ohio law “ownership” of the automobile was in Earl Schott, Inc. Garlick v. McFarland, 1953, 159 Oh St 539, 50 O. O. 445, 113 N. E. (2d) 92; Mielke v. Leeberson, 1948, 150 Oh St 528, 38 O. O. 352, [112]*11283 N. E. (2d), 209, 7 A. L. R. (2d), 1342; cf. Workman v. Republic Mut. Ins. Co, 1944. 144 Oh St 37, 28 O. O. 584, 56 N. E. (2d), 190. It is clear, however, that at the time of the collision Norman Stephen, Jr., was not operating the automobile “in connection with” the business purpose of Earl Schott, Inc. The automobile dealer had not given Norman Stephen, Sr., possession of the car for the purpose of trying to sell it to him. The sale had already been fully agreed upon and all of its terms settled.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding that a liability insurance policy issued to Earl Schott Inc., did not obligate the insurer with respect to claims against Norman Stephen Sr., or Norman Stephen Jr., growing out of a collision on June 12, 1955, in which an automobile was involved which the latter was driving. The judgment was rendered upon stipulated facts.

Ean Schott, Inc., w'as an automobile dealer, and at the time of the collision the Ohio certificate of title to the vehicle in question was in Schott’s name. A sale of the car to Norman Stephen, Sr., had been negotiated, however, and Schott had delivered possession of it to him. Stephen had made a small down-payment toward the purchase price, and arrangements had been made for extension of credit on the balance. Stephen had signed a note and chattel mortgage.

We perceive no error in the judgment of the district court. It appears that under Ohio law “ownership” of the automobile was in Earl Schott, Inc. Garlick v. McFarland, 1953, 159 Oh St 539, 50 O. O. 445, 113 N. E. (2d) 92; Mielke v. Leeberson, 1948, 150 Oh St 528, 38 O. O. 352, [112]*11283 N. E. (2d), 209, 7 A. L. R. (2d), 1342; cf. Workman v. Republic Mut. Ins. Co, 1944. 144 Oh St 37, 28 O. O. 584, 56 N. E. (2d), 190. It is clear, however, that at the time of the collision Norman Stephen, Jr., was not operating the automobile “in connection with” the business purpose of Earl Schott, Inc. The automobile dealer had not given Norman Stephen, Sr., possession of the car for the purpose of trying to sell it to him. The sale had already been fully agreed upon and all of its terms settled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F.2d 48, 79 Ohio Law. Abs. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-employers-liability-assurance-corp-ca6-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack