Court Opinion

ID: 9763055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:36:05.403547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:39.155071
License: Public Domain

HIGGINS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the opinion insofar as it affirms plaintiffs’ judgment against Mario Transport Corporation.
I cannot join the opinion in its affirmance of plaintiffs’ judgment against Pacific In-termountain Express Company because I cannot find any evidence to show defendant vicariously liable to the plaintiffs.
The majority opinion concedes there is no evidence that the fatal trip was carried on under P.I.E.’s authority or its knowledge or that it had any interest in the revenues connected to the trip.
The case against P.I.E. was submitted on a theory that failure of P.I.E. to remove an identifying sign covering a previous bona fide lease somehow provided the evidence of vicarious liability otherwise lacking. It is undisputed that there was no lease or other enterprise arrangement existing between P.I.E. and Tabor to provide a right of control on the trip in question as a basis for vicarious liability.
In these circumstances, plaintiffs failed to make a submissible case against P.I.E. and the judgment against it should be reversed.