Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch
| Decision Date | 27 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 18923,18923 |
| Citation | 240 Ind. 69,161 N.E.2d 617 |
| Parties | BIEL, INC., Appellant, v. Robert KIRSCH, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James E. Bingham and William M. Osborn, Indianapolis (Bingham, Summers & Spilman, Indianapolis, McFaddin & McFaddin, Rockville, Aikman, Piety & McPeak, Terre Haute, of counsel), for appellant.
Clelland J. Hanner, Rockville, Hansford C. Mann, Terre Haute, for appellee.
Howard S. Young, Jr., Indianapolis, amicus curiae.
While we do not approve of the reasoning of the Appellate Court in its opinion as it appears in 153 N.E.2d 140, we do, however, concur in the result reached in that court.
The evidence shows that Ethel Biel, President of Biel, Inc., the defendant below and appellant on appeal, was in the habit of taking an automobile belonging to the corporation home at night and driving it back to work each morning and leaving it on the parking lot of the corporation. On the particular morning in question as she was returning to work, she turned left at an intersection where a collision occurred with Robert Kirsch, who was riding a motorcycle. It is alleged that she was guilty of negligence at the time, which resulted in injury to the appellee. The action was dismissed as to Ethel H. Biel and maintained alone against Biel, Inc. An essential part of the proof necessary to hold the appellant corporation liable was that Ethel H. Biel, at the time and place of the accident, was the appellant's corporate agent, acting within the scope of her employment and authority for and on behalf of the corporation as her principal; otherwise no negligence may be imputed to the appellant corporation.
The appellee points out that Mrs. Biel was President of the corporation, owned all of the stock in the corporation except one share; that the corporation owned five passenger cars, including the one Mrs. Biel drove to and from work, and a delivery truck; that the company paid for the oil and gas, taxes and upkeep of all the vehicles, and maintained two parking lots for the accommodation of automobiles of the corporation. It is insisted that since the corporation had no garage, it got the benefit of having the car which Mrs. Biel used placed at night in her private garage where it was better protected from the weather.
Such incidental benefits, if any, cannot change a relationship of bailment to one of agency. There is no evidence that at the time of the accident Mrs. Biel was acting within the scope of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schimpf v. Gerald, Inc.
...joint and several liability the injured person may sue all defendants jointly, or either separately." Id. at 57. In Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch, 240 Ind. 69, 161 N.E.2d 617 (1959), the Supreme Court of Indiana expressly disapproved of an appellate court's holding that a cause of action against a c......
-
Konradi v. U.S., 89-3532
...three decades ago, "an employee on his way to work is normally not in the employment of the corporation." Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch, 240 Ind. 69, 73, 161 N.E.2d 617, 618 (1959) (per curiam). The rub is "normally," and though omitted in the statement of the rule in Pursley v. Ford Motor Co., 462 ......
-
Estate of Mayer v. Lax, Inc.
...Court in its opinion it appears in 153 N.E.2d 140, we do, however, concur in the result reached in that court.” Biel Inc. v. Kirsch, 240 Ind. 69, 70, 161 N.E.2d 617, 618 (1959). The court explained that it believed the driver of the Biel, Inc., vehicle was not acting within the scope of emp......
-
Stewart v. United States, C-2-75-383.
...v. Trosper, 108 Ind.App. 7, 23 N.E.2d 624 (1939); or where the work is the kind the servant is employed to perform, Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch, 240 Ind. 69, 161 N.E.2d 617 (1958). Plaintiff contends first that defendant was the servant of the United States Air Force. Although he was on travel sta......