This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Gorton v. Doty: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (1 revision imported: Import of multiple Business Association case briefs) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| followed = | | followed = | ||
| related = | | related = | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Facts''': Doty (appellant) told the Football coach that "he might use mine [auto] if he drove it." There was an accident on the drive to Paris. | '''Facts''': Doty (appellant) told the Football coach that "he might use mine [auto] if he drove it." There was an accident on the drive to Paris. |
Revision as of 06:57, October 18, 2019
Gorton v. Doty | |
Court | |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided |
Facts: Doty (appellant) told the Football coach that "he might use mine [auto] if he drove it." There was an accident on the drive to Paris.
Procedural History: Lower court awarded $870 for father of victim and $5000 to son. Appealed.
Issue: Was the football coach acting as an agent of Doty when he drove the car, thereby imposing liability on Doty?
Arguments: Doty did not loan her car to the coach, but let him drive it as her agent. There were no words about loaning or borrowing the car.
Holding: Coach was Doty's agent.
Reasons: There does not need to be a K nor a business deal to indicate an agency. Doty exercised control over the coach by telling him that he couldn't let student drive.
Judgment: Affirmed
Comments: Also, the P's attorney made a comment to the jury that hinted that the D might have auto insurance, which, according to J. Budge's dissent, is clear error.