Metcalf v. Samons, Inc.

Utah Supreme Court

Metcalf v. Samons, Inc.

520 P.2d 882, 1974 Utah LEXIS 539

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1974

DocketNo. 13486

StatusPublished

This text of 520 P.2d 882 (Metcalf v. Samons, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metcalf v. Samons, Inc., 520 P.2d 882, 1974 Utah LEXIS 539 (Utah 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a summary judgment against plaintiff. Affirmed with costs to defendant.

Metcalf, an employee of Samons, was asked by the latter’s manager to run an errand for the store, with the understanding that Metcalf would be paid mileage for using his own car, nothing else. While on the errand, he had a collision, and now asks his employer, Samons, to pay the damage, on a principal-agent theory, —that he was in the course of doing something on behalf of his employer.

There was nothing in the master-servant agreement here calling for such an indemnity, and there is nothing to indicate that Samons in any way was negligent.

We find no authority for plaintiff’s urgence to extend the agency contract beyond its four corners, but there is authority to the contrary.¹

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a summary judgment against plaintiff. Affirmed with costs to defendant.

Metcalf, an employee of Samons, was asked by the latter’s manager to run an errand for the store, with the understanding that Metcalf would be paid mileage for using his own car, nothing else. While on the errand, he had a collision, and now asks his employer, Samons, to pay the damage, on a principal-agent theory, —that he was in the course of doing something on behalf of his employer.

There was nothing in the master-servant agreement here calling for such an indemnity, and there is nothing to indicate that Samons in any way was negligent.

We find no authority for plaintiff’s urgence to extend the agency contract beyond its four corners, but there is authority to the contrary.¹

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 P.2d 882, 1974 Utah LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metcalf-v-samons-inc-utah-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack