Walsh v. Murman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Walsh v. Murman

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 439

DecidedMay 23, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 439 (Walsh v. Murman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walsh v. Murman, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 439 (Ohio Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

E. R. McCormack was employed by Murman as a taxicab driver, and in the absence of Murman took the car and drove it on an errand to take another employe home, solely as a personal accommodation to the passenger. This was in violation of the rules and orders of the employer, entirely outside of any of employer’s business. The Common Pleas. Judge E. B. Kinkead, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, instructed a verdict for defendant, under authority of the Cole case, 88 OS. 16. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the Common Pleas, held that the case was controlled by the Cole ease, which had been recently approved in the Bretzfelder case, 102 .OS. 105, and was in accord with the Stewart case, 22 CC. (NS.) 588. It also differentiated the Rosenberg case, 11 O. App. 66.

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

BY THE COURT.

Epitomized Opinion

E. R. McCormack was employed by Murman as a taxicab driver, and in the absence of Murman took the car and drove it on an errand to take another employe home, solely as a personal accommodation to the passenger. This was in violation of the rules and orders of the employer, entirely outside of any of employer’s business. The Common Pleas. Judge E. B. Kinkead, at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, instructed a verdict for defendant, under authority of the Cole case, 88 OS. 16. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the Common Pleas, held that the case was controlled by the Cole ease, which had been recently approved in the Bretzfelder case, 102 .OS. 105, and was in accord with the Stewart case, 22 CC. (NS.) 588. It also differentiated the Rosenberg case, 11 O. App. 66.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-murman-ohioctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack