Opinion ID: 1848381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unreasonable Time Extension.

Text: There is uncontroverted testimony that the main office and yard of the Charles Maier & Son Company closed at 5 p. m. The contention is made that at the time of the accident Moore was not subject to the control of his employer. Restatement, 1 Agency 2d, p. 516, sec. 233, states: Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment only during a period which has a reasonable connection with the authorized period. . . . [Employment] begins only when the master has a right to direct the method by which the servant is to perform the work, and terminates when the master has no longer a right to control it. . . . Restatement, 1 Agency 2d, p. 516, sec. 233, comment a. (Emphasis supplied.)  The Charles Maier & Son Company argues that since its office and yard close at 5 p. m. and the accident happened at 5:30 p. m., Moore could not return any of these items until the following morning. It is thus argued that the company could not and did not exercise any control over Moore's action. Although both issues appear to be weighed in favor of Charles Maier & Son Company, recent decisions of this court indicate that trial courts possess wide latitude when considering motions for summary judgment. Cranston v. Bluhm (1969), 42 Wis. 2d 425, 167 N. W. 2d 236; McConnell v. L. C. L. Transit Co. (1969), 42 Wis. 2d 429, 167 N. W. 2d 226; and Hardscrabble Ski Area v. First Nat. Bank, supra . In Zimmer v. Daun (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 627, 631, 162 N. W. 2d 626, the court stated: We think sec. 270.635, States., providing for summary judgment, does not confer a right to summary judgment but rather confers on the trial court a discretionary power to grant summary judgment when it believes summary disposition of a case is called for. . . . As stated in Schuster v. Germantown Mut. Ins. Co. (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 447, 452, 162 N. W. 2d 129: . . . If the party opposing the motion for summary judgment submits sufficient facts which show there is a real controversy and takes the matter challenged by the motion out of the category of being a sham and unmeritorious suit or defense, that party is normally entitled to a trial on the merits. . . . Since summary judgment is not a matter of right and no abuse of the trial court's discretion has been shown, we affirm the trial court's order. By the Court. Order affirmed.