Roach v. Mead
Supreme Court of Oregon
722 P.2d 1229 (1986)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Berentson and Mead (defendants) were partners in a law firm. Mead represented Roach (plaintiff) on several occasions. When Roach asked Mead’s advice on investing the proceeds of a business sale, Mead told Roach he would take the money at 15 percent interest. Roach testified that he considered this to be legal advice, and he gave Mead $20,000. Mead did not repay any of the money, and Roach sued Mead’s partnership for negligence. Berentson moved for a directed verdict, arguing that he was not vicariously liable for Mead’s negligent acts because they were outside the scope of the partnership’s business. The trial court denied the motion. The jury found Berentson vicariously liable for Mead’s negligence, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
