Court Opinion

ID: 9650996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:00:27.960814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:28.601990
License: Public Domain

MUNGER, District Judge
(dissenting).
Under the facts in this ease, I think the appellant was not responsible for the act of the driver of the bus, because the driver was not subject to the direction or control of appellant in the mode of his performance of his work, and that the responsibility for the driver’s act ,was imposed upon Sehack as an independent contractor. Casement v. Brown, 148 U. S. 615, 13 S. Ct. 672, 37 L. Ed. 582; Byrne v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 61 F. 605, 24 L. R. A. 693; Bellatty v. Barrett Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 196 P. 493. the question was properly presented by a request at the close of the evidence, that the court should direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. I think that a new trial should be awarded, because of the error in overruling that request.