Fruit v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

502 P.2d 133 (1972)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Fruit v. Equitable Life Assurance Society

Alaska Supreme Court
502 P.2d 133 (1972)

Play video

Facts

Clay Fruit (defendant), an insurance salesman, was required by contract to attend a sales convention held by his employer, Equitable Life Assurance Society (Equitable) (defendant). During the convention, Equitable required its employees to secure their own transportation, expected employees to socialize with other attendees at various restaurants and venues around town, and asked its employees to travel at all hours of the day and night between off-site locations and the convention center. Fruit visited a restaurant where he thought conference attendees would be but left when he discovered no colleagues were there. On the drive back to the convention center, the vehicle Fruit was driving skidded across the dividing line of a highway and collided with the front of John Schreiner's (plaintiff) car. Schreiner, who was standing in front of his car, was struck by Fruit’s vehicle and pinned between the two automobiles. Schreiner’s left leg was amputated, and the muscle tissue of his right leg was so destroyed as to leave him permanently disabled. Schreiner filed suit against Fruit and his employer, Equitable, seeking damages for his pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, loss of income, and other financial losses. After trial, the jury found that Fruit’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. Additionally, the jury concluded that Fruit was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and that Equitable was directly negligent in planning and conducting the convention, which was also a proximate cause of the accident. The jury awarded Schreiner damages of $635,000 from both defendants. Subsequently, the trial court denied motions by Schreiner and Equitable requesting judgments notwithstanding the verdict. The defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Boochever, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership