Court Opinion

ID: 9530651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:02:09.096521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:12.654712
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Frantz
dissenting:
I quote from the majority opinion:
“ * * * In connection with his request, Mears volunteered to pay Kovacic’s expenses ‘if he would take me to Denver to get my wife and bring her back.’ When asked what expenses he had in mind, Mears replied: ‘All incidental expenses to the trip such as gasoline, oil, food, lodging.’ Although it was clearly established that Kovacic himself had no reason to go to Denver, he nevertheless agreed to aid Mears, and within one hour the two were headed toward Denver in Kovacic’s automobile and with Kovacic at the wheel.”
Here was an offer and an acceptance; these created a contract of hire; all the elements of a binding contract were present. We cannot say, in relation to these circumstances, “this is no contract,” and under other circumstances not involving an automobile, “this is a contract.”
At the very least, this case should have been submitted to the jury on the question of whether a contract of hire had been entered into, under an instruction defining what a contract of hire under the law would involve.
For these reasons, I dissent.