Jahn's Admr. v. Wm. H. McKnight & Co.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Burnam
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- motion to dismiss
Outcome
The court denied the Navy's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, allowing the employment discrimination case to proceed. However, this is a procedural ruling on jurisdictional grounds, not a decision on the merits of the discrimination claims.
Excerpt
<p>Case 77 — Action bt Albert Jahn’s Admr. against William H. McKnight & Co. for Causing the Death of Plaintiff’s Intestate.</p> <p>APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, COMMON PLEAS DIVISION.</p> <p>Judgment foe Defendants and Plaintiff Appeals.</p> <p>POINTS.</p> <p>1. The team owner was not an independent contractor.</p> <p>2. Whatever may have been the relation between the appellee and the team owner, the relation between appellee and the team driver was such as to render appellee liable for the team driver’s negligence,</p> <p>3. In any event, the lower court erred in giving a peremptory instruction to find for appellee.</p> <p>AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2d ed., vol. 16, pp. 187, 190, 191; Jenson v. Barbour, 15 Mont., 582; Montgomery Gas Light Co. v. Montgomery & E. Ry. Co., 86 Ala., 372; Campbell v. Lunsford, 83 Ala., 512; Linehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass., 123; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, p. 579; Alyell v. Tyrer, El. Bl., 906; Blake v. Thirst, 2d H. & C., 20; Texas, &c. R. R. Co. v. June-man, 71 Fed. Rep., 939; Tiffin v. McCormick, 34 Ohio St., 638; Waters v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 52 Minn., 474; Phila W. & B. Ry. Co. v. Hahn, 12 Atl., 479; Thompson on Negligence, vol. 1, sec. 579, p. 537; Kimball, v. Cushman, 103 Mass., 194; Adams Express Co. v. S'chofield, 23 Ky. Law Rep., 1120; Southern Express Co. v. Brown, 67 Miss., 260; Vary v. Ry. Co., 42 la., 246; Wichtrecht v. Fasnacht, 17 La. Ann., 166; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Tow, &e., 23 Ky. Law Rep., 408; Rait v. New Eng. Fur. &c., 66 Minn., 76; Barg Bousfield, 65 Minn., 355; Sullivan v. Dunham, 35 N. Y. App. Div., 342; Hart v. Ryan, 6 .N. Y. Supp., 921; Brophy v. Bartlett, 108 N. Y., 632.</p> <p>POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.</p> <p>1. Appellees are merchants, having no delivery wagons; they contracted with Granville' Hooper to furnish them a horse, wagon and driver to carry and deliver as much as could be done with one team, for a stipulated price per week. By the contract Granville Hooper selected the horse
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.