Carter v. Reynolds
New Jersey Supreme Court
815 A.2d 460 (2003)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Alice Reynolds was employed by Stevens, Fluhr, Chismar, Alvino & Schechter, CPA (the firm) (defendants). Reynolds worked in the firm’s office and visited clients. Reynolds used her own car for travel and was reimbursed for mileage. One afternoon, Reynolds was traveling from a client location to her home when her car struck David Carter (plaintiff). Carter sued Reynolds for negligence and later added the firm as a defendant, alleging that Reynolds was in the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. The court granted the firm’s summary-judgment motion. Carter moved for reconsideration. The court found that Reynolds was acting within the scope of employment and granted partial summary judgment to Carter based on respondeat-superior liability. The appellate division affirmed. The firm was granted leave to appeal to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Long, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.