Gorton v. Doty: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (1 revision imported: Import of multiple Business Association case briefs)
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
| followed              =  
| followed              =  
| related              =  
| related              =  
}}
{{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.
'''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.