Taylor v. Ewing
Pennsylvania Superior Court
70 A.2d 456 (1950)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Ralph Ewing (defendant) owned a car dealership that included a garage, showroom, and used-car lot. Ewing employed Haywood Taylor (plaintiff) to clean Ewing’s facilities and service the cars. On July 10, 1947, Taylor did not have any work to complete in the showroom or garage, so Ewing told Taylor to go to Ewing’s home and mow Ewing’s grass with Ewing’s lawnmower. When Taylor was trying to adjust the belt on the lawnmower, Taylor suffered an injury that required the partial amputation of his right index finger. Taylor sought workers’-compensation benefits from Ewing and Ewing’s workers’-compensation insurer. The workers’-compensation commission awarded Taylor benefits, and the court of common pleas affirmed. Ewing’s insurer appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing that Taylor was not entitled to benefits because Taylor’s injury had not occurred in the course of Taylor’s employment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rhodes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
