Case Name: AUTHORIZED DEALERS INC v. ALMS & DOEPKE COMPANY
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1932-03-07
Citations: 12 Ohio Law Abs. 158
Docket Number: No 4030
Parties: AUTHORIZED DEALERS INC v ALMS & DOEPKE COMPANY
Judges: HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 12
Pages: 158–158

Head Matter:
AUTHORIZED DEALERS INC v ALMS & DOEPKE COMPANY
Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co
No 4030.
Decided March 7, 1932
Messrs. Merland, O’Meara, Santen & Willging, Cincinnati, for plaintiff in error.
Carl E. Basler, Cincinnati, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
ROSS, PJ.
The evidence of the defendant in error showed that the employe of plaintiff in error was given the option to return the automobile to its sales rooms, at the close of the day's work, or take it to the employe's home. Certainly until he had reached his home and placed the automobile in a place of safety, he was still acting within the scope of his employment upon his master's business.
The trial court instructed a verdict for the defendant, at the close of the evidence in the trial court. This was error, and the case was properly reversed by the Court of Common Pleas, and its judgment of reversal is affirmed.
HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.