From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1938
279 N.Y. 648 (N.Y. 1938)

Summary

In Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1938, 279 N.Y. 648, 18 N.E.2d 42, an employee of an insurance company, who had been using his personal automobile to call on policyholders, and was on his way home after his last stop, had an accident, yet his employer was held liable.

Summary of this case from Cooner v. United States

Opinion

Argued October 19, 1938

Decided November 22, 1938

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Samuel Seabury and P.C. Dugan for appellant.

James A. Leary and Walter A. Fullerton for respondent.


Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN, FINCH and RIPPEY, JJ.


Summaries of

Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 22, 1938
279 N.Y. 648 (N.Y. 1938)

In Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1938, 279 N.Y. 648, 18 N.E.2d 42, an employee of an insurance company, who had been using his personal automobile to call on policyholders, and was on his way home after his last stop, had an accident, yet his employer was held liable.

Summary of this case from Cooner v. United States

In Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 279 N.Y. 648, 18 N.E.2d 42, an insurance agent living in Saratoga Springs was required to work a debit route, much of which was in neighboring towns and hamlets and in the country remote from bus lines.

Summary of this case from Cooner v. United States
Case details for

Burdo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH BURDO, as Administrator of the Estate of MINNIE BURDO, Deceased…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 22, 1938

Citations

279 N.Y. 648 (N.Y. 1938)
18 N.E.2d 42

Citing Cases

Cooner v. United States

Just as the Georgia cases have not required the employer to own the automobile used on his business, as…

Swierczynski v. O'Neill

That was error. The doctrine of respondeat superior as it relates to an employee using his or her vehicle…