Hynes v. Donaldson
| Decision Date | 14 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20512,20512 |
| Citation | 155 Colo. 456,395 P.2d 221 |
| Parties | Aileen HYNES and Walter D. Boettger, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John DONALDSON and Republic Carloading and Distributing Co., Inc., a corporation, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Smith, Pyle, Johnson & Makris, Roger L. Simon, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Yegge, Hall & Shulenburg, Don R. Evans, Edward C. Eppich, Denver, for defendant in error.
The propriety of a summary judgment in favor of Republic Carloading and Distributing Co., Inc., designated hereinafter as the Corporation, is disputed by writ of error in this Court.
Hynes and Boettger sued Donaldson and the Corporation for damages alleged to have been sustained in an automobile collision in which Donaldson was charged with negligence and liability was asserted against the Corporation on the theory of respondeat superior.
The Corporation filed an answer in which it denied that Donaldson was its agent and servant at the time of the collision. By its separate, affirmative defense the Corporation alleged that Donaldson was operating his own vehicle on a mission disassociated from the Corporation's business when the collision occurred.
Upon the theory that the pleadings and two depositions showed the absence of a genuine issue, the Corporation moved for a summary judgment. Based upon the depositions, which presented no disputed facts, the trial court decided that there was an absence of the necessary relationship between the Corporation and Donaldson. It thereupon granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Corporation, expressly determined that there was no just reason for delay, directed that it be a final judgment, and dispensed with the necessity of filing a motion for new trial, thus creating a justiciable case for review by this Court. Rule 54(b), R.C.P.Colo.
From the depositions it appears that Donaldson had been an employee of the Corporation for several years and was the district manager for the New Mexico area with the base of operations at Albuquerque. He was paid a monthly salary and had an expense account, including mileage, car allowance, and entertainment. He was paid a per diem plus mileage on trips out of town.
In September of 1959, Donaldson was advised that he was going to be transferred to the Denver office. Pursuant to instructions given him, he sought a replacement for himself.
During the first part of October, the Corporation directed Donaldson to go to Denver. There he was to discuss the Corporation's business, familiarize himself with the area, and meet some of the people with whom he would deal. He would be afforded an opportunity while in Denver to search for a home for his family.
He arrived in Denver on October 3, 1959, and there the Corporation directed him to the motel at which it had engaged and paid for a room for Donaldson's convenience while he was in Denver.
On Sunday, October 4th, he had breakfast with an official of the Corporation, after which he spent some time in quest of a home. That evening he dined with the official at the latter's apartment, where they discussed the operation and business of the Corporation. It was after he left this meeting and was returning in his car to his motel room that the accident in question occurred.
Did the trial court in the consideration of these circumstances correctly hold that, as a matter of law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller v. Koca, Case No. 04SC304 (CO 5/16/2005)
...v. Russell, 44 P.3d 1063, 1070 (Colo. 2002); Grease Monkey Int'l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 473 (Colo. 1995); Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456, 395 P.2d 221 (1964); Lovejoy v. Denver & R.G.R. Co., 59 Colo. 222, 146 P. 263 (1915). Under the theory of vicarious liability, an employer ma......
-
Kang v. Charles Pankow Associates
...the employer in the latter locality. Furthermore, we are unaware of any reported tort case so holding. The cases of Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456, 395 P.2d 221 (1964) (accident occurred while employee was familiarizing himself with the new place of employment in another city as instruct......
-
McSwain v. United States
...Arraj in Courtright examined the law on this subject and particularly the applicable Colorado law. Relying in part on Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456, 395 P.2d 221 (1964), he concluded that Colorado followed the latter theory. Accordingly, Courtright is not authority for the position that......
-
Fowler v. U.S.
...or while going to or returning from a meal” are necessarily incident to, and within the scope of, his employment. Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456, 395 P.2d 221, 223 (1964). Under this doctrine, the employer may be liable for those acts that “are necessarily incidental to the employment.” ......
-
A Primer on the Requirements for a Compensable Injury
...505 P.2d 966 (Colo. 1973). [34] Goettman v. North Fork Valley Restaurant, 176 P.3d 60, 70 (Colo. 2007). See, e.g., Hymes v. Donaldson, 395 P.2d 221, 223 (Colo. 1964). [35] Pacesetter Corp. v. Collett, 33 P.3d 1230, 1233 (Colo.App. 2001) (discussing Upchurch v. Indus. Comm'n, 703 P.2d 628 (C......
-
Certification Under Rule 54(b): Risky Efficiency
...v. Wynkoop, 36 Colo.App. 206, 539 P.2d 1349 (1975); Interladco, Inc. v. Billings, 538 P.2d 496 (Colo.App. 1975); and Hynes v. Donaldson, 155 Colo. 456, 395 P.2d 221 (1964), respectively. 14. See, supra, note 4; Moore & Co. v. Triangle Const. & Development, 44 Colo.App. 499, 619 P.2d 80 (198......