Riley vs Standard Oil
ADVANTAGE PROGRAM
Business Law – Module 12
CASE BRIEF for CLASS REQUIREMENT
Your name: Shannon Crawford Date: April 24, 2013
1. Cite the case (e.g., Jones v. Smith, 231 P.2d 456 (Nev. 1996):
Riley v. Standard Oil of New York, 132 N.E. 97 (N.Y. 1921)
2. State the facts of the case:
Million acting as chauffer is told to drive company vehicle 2.5 miles to pick up paint and return to the mill. Million picks up the paint, sees scrap wood that his sister had mentioned she needed. After passing the mill, Million continues to his sisters home (four blocks in the opposite direction) where he unloads the scrap wood and starts driving back to the mill. On his way back, Million hits and severely injures infant Riley. Riley family sues Standard Oil of New York and Million for negligence.
3. What was the lower court(s) (i.e., trial court, appellate court, if applicable) ruling (identify the court(s)):
Trial Court (TC) rendered a substantial verdict in favor of Riley
1st Appellette Court (1AC) reverses in favor of Standard Oil of New York
4. Issue (in the form of a question):
Was Million acting in the scope of employment?
5. Holding of this court (i.e., the one cited in 1. above) (how did the court answer the issue---YES OR NO-- resulting in what ruling---affirmed, reversed, remanded????)):
NO – The court affirmed the 1st Appellatte Court’s decision stating Standard Oil of New Your was not liable based on Million acting outside the scope of employment.
6. Explain decision (give rationale of the court in reaching the decision): (MOST IMPORTANT ITEM-BECOMES LAW)
Since Million had deviated past the normal route of business, he was frolicing at his own discretion on his own time, therefore releasing Standard Oil of New York of any
Business Law – Module 12
CASE BRIEF for CLASS REQUIREMENT
Your name: Shannon Crawford Date: April 24, 2013
1. Cite the case (e.g., Jones v. Smith, 231 P.2d 456 (Nev. 1996):
Riley v. Standard Oil of New York, 132 N.E. 97 (N.Y. 1921)
2. State the facts of the case:
Million acting as chauffer is told to drive company vehicle 2.5 miles to pick up paint and return to the mill. Million picks up the paint, sees scrap wood that his sister had mentioned she needed. After passing the mill, Million continues to his sisters home (four blocks in the opposite direction) where he unloads the scrap wood and starts driving back to the mill. On his way back, Million hits and severely injures infant Riley. Riley family sues Standard Oil of New York and Million for negligence.
3. What was the lower court(s) (i.e., trial court, appellate court, if applicable) ruling (identify the court(s)):
Trial Court (TC) rendered a substantial verdict in favor of Riley
1st Appellette Court (1AC) reverses in favor of Standard Oil of New York
4. Issue (in the form of a question):
Was Million acting in the scope of employment?
5. Holding of this court (i.e., the one cited in 1. above) (how did the court answer the issue---YES OR NO-- resulting in what ruling---affirmed, reversed, remanded????)):
NO – The court affirmed the 1st Appellatte Court’s decision stating Standard Oil of New Your was not liable based on Million acting outside the scope of employment.
6. Explain decision (give rationale of the court in reaching the decision): (MOST IMPORTANT ITEM-BECOMES LAW)
Since Million had deviated past the normal route of business, he was frolicing at his own discretion on his own time, therefore releasing Standard Oil of New York of any