Editing Gorton v. Doty

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Case Brief
{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=
| court                 =  
|citation=
| citation             =
|subject=Business Associations
| date                  =  
|appealed_from=
| subject               = Business Associations
|overturned=
| appealed_from         =  
|partially_overturned=
| decision_by          =  
|reaffirmed=
| joined_by            =  
|questioned=
| concurrence          =  
|criticized=
| dissent              =  
|distinguished=
| concur_dissent        =  
|cited=
| overturned            =  
|followed=
| partially_overturned  =  
|related=
| reaffirmed            =  
|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.
| questioned            =  
|procedural_history=Lower court awarded $870 for father of victim and $5000 to son. Appealed.
| criticized            =  
|issues=Was the football coach acting as an agent of Doty when he drove the car, thereby imposing liability on Doty?
| distinguished        =  
|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.
| cited                =  
|holding=Coach was Doty's agent.
| followed              =  
|judgment=Affirmed
| related              =  
|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.
|rule=
|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.
|case_text_links=
|Court_opinion_parts=
}}
}}
{{Court opinion part
| opinion_type          =
| written_by            =
| joined_by            =
}}
'''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.
Please note that all contributions to Wiki Law School are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (see Wiki Law School:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: