Sandrock v. Taylor
Nebraska Supreme Court
174 N.W.2d 186 (1970)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Robert Taylor (defendant) contracted with Cooperative Marketing Association (co-op) (defendant) to deliver milk for the co-op. The contract resembled independent-contractor agreements in that it disclaimed any right on the co-op’s part to prescribe the method or manner in which Taylor performed his work and required Taylor to maintain his own liability insurance and pay his own operating expenses. However, the contract listed the expenses that the co-op expected Taylor to pay, obligated Taylor to buy his delivery truck from the co-op, set Taylor’s delivery route, forbade Taylor from working for the co-op’s competitors, and gave the co-op the right to terminate its relationship with Taylor on short notice. Taylor was delivering a milk shipment when Casper Meirose (defendant) agreed to give his neighbor, George Sandrock, a ride into town so that Sandrock could perform a work errand. Taylor’s truck collided with Meirose’s car. Sandrock, who was sitting in Meirose’s passenger seat, was killed in the collision. Delores Sandrock (plaintiff), Sandrock’s widow and the administratrix of his estate, sued Taylor, the co-op, and Meirose for negligence. The trial jury awarded damages against all three defendants. Taylor and the co-op appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, where Taylor argued for imputing Meirose’s negligence to Sandrock, and the co-op denied any imputed liability for Taylor’s negligence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCown, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.