Hinman v. Westinghouse
Supreme Court of California
471 P.2d 988 (1970)
- Written by Dan Lake, JD
Facts
Herman, an employee of Westinghouse (defendant), was driving home from a job site when he collided with Hinman (plaintiff), causing Hinman injuries. Under the standard union contract governing Herman’s employment with Westinghouse, Herman received compensation for his travel time and commuting expenses. Hinman brought a negligence claim against Westinghouse, claiming that Westinghouse was vicariously liable for Herman’s tort under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trial judge refused to rule as a matter of law that Herman was acting within the scope of his employment, and instead instructed the jury to determine the scope of Herman’s employment. The jury found that Herman was outside the scope of employment, and accordingly returned a verdict in favor of Westinghouse.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.