Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,302 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Oklahoma State Categories







Sheffer v Carolina Forge Company, L.L.C.

Case No. 109199 (OK S.Ct., Jun. 25, 2013)

Charles Sheffer, Jennifer Sheffer, and their minor son, J.S., were injured when their 18-wheeler tractor trailer collided with a rental vehicle leased to William Garris and driven by David Billups, both employees of Carolina Forge Company, L.L.C. Plaintiffs sued Carolina Forge on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carolina Forge, finding as a matter of law that Carolina Forge was not liable for its employees' actions under a theory of respondeat superior and did not negligently entrust the rental vehicle to its employees. Upon review of the record, we find reasonable minds could differ on the questions of whether employees of Carolina Forge were in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident and whether Carolina Forge negligently entrusted the rental vehicle to its employees. As such, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to Carolina Forge.

Facts & Procedural History



On August 24, 2006, William Garris III and David Billups flew from Raleigh, North Carolina, to Joplin, Missouri, on a business trip for their employer, Carolina Forge Company, L.L.C. Garris was the quality manager for Carolina Forge, and Billups was a customer service representative. The trip was scheduled to take place from August 24, 2006, to August 27, 2006, in Joplin, Missouri. Normally, William Casella, the corporate representative and plant manager for Carolina Forge, accompanied Garris to Joplin to call on customer F.A.G. Bearings. But Mr. Casella had another commitment, so Billups accompanied Garris on this particular trip. The primary purpose of the trip was to participate in a golf outing at the invitation of F.A.G. Bearings.

Carolina Forge paid for Garris and Billups' airline tickets and rental car in advance of the trip. Carolina Forge also gave Garris and Billups $600.00 cash to pay for expenses incurred during the trip. Helen Mixon, human resource administrator for Carolina Forge, testified in her deposition that the $600.00 was intended to pay for entertaining customers and for gas in the rental car. Carolina Forge also reimbursed employees for additional out of pocket expenses during business trips, including meals, snacks, and alcoholic beverages.
 

 

Judge(s): Noma D. Gurich
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Related Categories: Employment , Transportation
 
Supreme Court Judge(s)
Tom Colbert
Douglas Combs
James Edmondson
Noma Gurich
Yvonne Kauger
John Reif
Steven Taylor
Joseph Watt
James Winchester

 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Robert Haney

 
Appellant Lawyer(s) Appellant Law Firm(s)
Ed Hershewe
Richard Yohn
Christopher Davis Johnson & Jones PC
Trevor Hughes Johnson & Jones PC

 
Appellee Lawyer(s) Appellee Law Firm(s)
Thomas Cordell, Jr. Frailey Chaffin Cordell Perryman, Sterkel McCalla & Brown LLP
Ryan Dean Frailey Chaffin Cordell Perryman, Sterkel McCalla & Brown LLP
Rochette Wurth Frailey Chaffin Cordell Perryman, Sterkel McCalla & Brown LLP

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
id. ex. a at 20. casella replied, "no. there was not--that i recall anyway."26 taking into consideration the purpose of the mission and the distance traveled, it could be ¶27 plaintiffs learned during the deposition of defendant's corporate representatives that ¶4 following the presentation, garris and billups toured another portion of the facility. favorable to the party opposing summary adjudication. estate of crowell v. bd. of cnty. ouji 6.12 goes onto state: q: have you reimbursed your customer representative, mr. [garris], and/or mr. billups, charles sheffer; jennifer sheffer; and j.s., a minor by and through his viewing these facts in a light most as against your clients? proper, usual and necessary to accomplish the work assigned to [him] by [his] employer, light, bud draft, for 5 dollars and 29 cents. carolina forge representatives had participated notice: this opinion has not been released for publication in plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary testified in her deposition that the $600.00 was intended to pay for entertaining customers 7 id. ex. a at 16; ex. b at 24. ¶19 in some cases, the deviation may be so marked or slight that, as a matter of law, only course just outside joplin. 39 a: i do not know. would have been acceptable to the company.20 beverages they consumed on prior business trips. receipts provided by carolina forge carolina forge regardless of whether the drinks were with customers.15 that's the last thing i remember. attended during this particular trip. based on this newly acquired information, they sent a where he stopped for a meal. id. too tired to continue, he returned to durant, which was on appeal from the district court of ottawa county, afternoon and evening, at restaurants, at golf outings, and at bars and other establishments 20 miles west of the timberline steakhouse in joplin, missouri. ¶3 garris and billups arrived in joplin on the evening of august 24, 2006, and checked should know, because of youth, inexperience, or otherwise, is likely to use it in a manner the court: employer/employee. peterman, 1940 ok 49, ¶ 11, 99 p.2d 130, 132. ¶13 the record indicates carolina forge reserved and paid for the rental car for garris [intoxicated/careless/reckless/incompetent to drive]." ¶25 as in oil daily, carolina forge gave its employees unrestricted discretion on q: okay. all right. let me back up here a little bit, okay? would the money that you summary judgment and brief in support, ex. a at 21-22. mr. hershewe: okay. now, i want to address the issues on-- purchase toiletries and other necessities. garris and billups then had dinner at timberline 17 2 q: would that include drinks at dinner? ¶30 reasonable minds could differ on whether the employees of carolina forge were in the men had unlimited use of the rental car, and cowan, 829 p.2d 352, 360 (colo. 1992) (emphasis added) (citing restatement (second) vehicle. id. private club, where he remained for some time. id. he then proceeded to denison, texas, the court: well, how are they going to get repaid for the benefits they paid in this case the trip.1 steakhouse in joplin. no f.a.g. bearings representatives joined garris and billups for reimbursements for food, alcohol, and gas on past business trips regardless of whether matter. feightner v. bank of okla., n.a., 2003 ok 20, ¶ 2, 65 p.3d 624, 626. questions accident and whether carolina forge negligently entrusted the rental vehicle to its f. thomas cordell, jr., rochette wurth, ryan l. dean, frailey, chaffin, cordell, id. ex. a at 22; ex. b at 48-49. the afternoon and left that evening in his automobile for the return trip to dallas. id. he and billups for this particular business trip to joplin.8 business in tulsa and proceeded on to kansas city by plane. id. he returned to tulsa in in fact, mr. casella testified that had garris allowed billups to drive, that consistent with today's pronouncement ouji 6.7 states: recall refusing to reimburse an employee for an expense documented with receipts and honorable robert g. haney trips. both of carolina forge's corporate representatives testified they could not ever q: what type of entertainment is allowed? inc., 368 s.e.2d 582 (n.c. 1988). testified carolina forge would have paid for garris and billups' meals, including alcohol, employees. id. mr. casella testified in his deposition that he could not recall whether garris had under north carolina law, "for a claimant to recover workers' compensation benefits for of pocket expenses during business trips, including meals, snacks, and alcoholic facts & procedural history after a: yes. when they would go on these trips, yes. instructions not to leave joplin, mr. casella answered, "no sir. we did not."25 alcoholic beverage expenses on their expense itemization reports for reimbursement by standard of review q: then under that, bates stamp 124, it's a webster's inn, and it shows that there was-- judgment and brief in support, ex. a at 15. ¶29 the trial court did not address plaintiffs' request for more time to obtain discovery on customer f.a.g. bearings. but mr. casella had another commitment, so billups entrusted does not arise out of the relationship of the parties, but from the act of 6 independent, and non-deferential authority to examine the issues presented. martin v. thereby. green v. harris, 2003 ok 55, n.5, 70 p.3d 866, 868 n.5. see also shoemake v. plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary ¶2 carolina forge paid for garris and billups' airline tickets and rental car in advance of trial court's order granting summary judgment is when an employer sends an employee on a business trip with cash, credit cards and rent retail merchants ass'n v. at the time of the accident carolina forge at the customer's facility, where they took a tour and then delivered a presentation to summary judgment was filed, carolina forge had not yet furnished the discovery 29 perryman, sterkel, mccalla & brown l.l.p., chickasha, oklahoma, attorneys for 4 spending several hours at the casino, garris and billups decided to return to their hotel. directly or through a third person, for the use of another whom the supplier knows, or consistent with today's pronouncement to the trip he was on at the time of the accident."38 32 have possession or control over the rental car at the time of the accident. "the rationale clothes and then met f.a.g. bearings representatives for golf at the briarbrook golf entertain a customer of carolina forge.10 as well as the negligent entrustment and supervision claims at issue."37 ¶14 although carolina forge reimbursed employees for all money spent on alcoholic r: hmm, no, no. when we got ready to leave to go to the car. dollars and 61 cents. 31 and negligent entrustment claims. reply to plaintiffs' response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for this portion of interstate highway 44 is the will rogers turnpike, which is a toll road expenses for meals and drinks when the employees were on personal time, mr. casella an [employee] is acting outside the scope of [his] [employment] when [he] substantially and presumably denied any such relief when it granted summary judgment to carolina crib in joplin. after lunch, garris and billups went back to their hotel rooms to change nat'l trailer convoy, inc. v. saul, 18 prior trips to joplin for a similar golf outing demonstrate what constituted acceptable arrived in durant, oklahoma, late in the evening and stopped at a roadside café and id. ex. a at 15. 12 would pay for that."31 ed hershewe, joplin, missouri, attorney for plaintiffs-appellants ¶32 kauger, j., concurs in part, dissents in part; entertain customers and to participate in the golf outing.29 respondeat superior argued: have the opportunity to at least obtain the discovery they have recently requested to show footnotes ¶1 on august 24, 2006, william garris iii and david billups flew from raleigh, north reversed; cause remanded for further proceedings respondeat superior doctrine. id. at 14. oil daily appealed, and the tenth circuit plaintiffs' vehicle, an 18-wheeler tractor trailer, resulting in injuries to all three automobile, for a business trip to kansas city, via tulsa. id. he transacted company ¶33 taylor, j., concurring billups turned around in a lane barricade opening.4 judgment and brief in support, ex. b at 64. dinner at the timberline steakhouse. after dinner, garris and billups went to the buffalo taken them back to joplin and instead drove west on interstate highway 44 toward tulsa. the business trip, carolina forge routinely reimbursed employees for expenditures during negligent hiring claim. however, while leaving miami, billups missed the eastbound ramp which would have benefits that they paid in this case. 27 ¶8 plaintiffs filed suit in the district court of ottawa county against carolina forge, would expect them to do. i don't know of anything other than that they would be needing. ¶11 when examining an order sustaining summary judgment, this court must determine between owner and person entrusted with vehicle because employment relationship is not mr. casella testified he accompanied garris on this particular trip. the primary purpose of the trip was to business trips and that carolina forge acted negligently when it rented a car for garris 10 to reaching denison, he fell asleep and his automobile collided with the plaintiff's exchange went as follows: id. ex. a at 21. run casino. no representatives from f.a.g. bearings accompanied garris and billups to to its employees. as such, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to granted, finding garris and billups were not in the course and scope of their employment q: then there's an [sic] max & ernst concourse c at the hopkins international airport in state line. defendant carolina forge company l.l.c.'s motion for summary judgment 25 p.3d 918, 920. even if basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment ms. mixon testified the airline representative and plant manager for carolina forge, accompanied garris to joplin to call question for the trier of fact. baker, 2005 ok 36, ¶ 16, 126 p.3d at 606 (citing chicago, departure wholly disconnected from employment relieving the employer from liability for ohio[?]"). approximately nine pages of ms. mixon's deposition testimony included were and were not paid for or reimbursed by carolina forge.33 evidence in the record does not support a determination as a matter of law that carolina richard l. yohn, mcalester, oklahoma, attorney for plaintiffs-appellants q: would a customer service representative and quality manager be expected to take a judgment and brief in support, ex. b at 54. entrustment.6 determines a supplier's negligence. id. forge's workers' compensation carrier provides: carolina forge negligently entrusted the rental vehicle to its employees. summary authority." baker v. saint francis hosp., 2005 ok 36, ¶ 10, 126 p.3d 602, 605. "under stich, 1975 ok 55, ¶ 13, 534 p.2d 667, 669-70. this court has long held that death, he must prove that death resulted from an injury (1) by accident; (2) arising out of the passenger, william garris. judgment and brief in support, ex. a at 42. ¶26 the record indicates plaintiffs requested additional discovery from carolina forge conclusion mr. casella also the record also indicates the purpose of this particular business trip to joplin was to in this particular golf outing in previous years and expected its representatives to entertain including garris, had been reimbursed by carolina forge for numerous alcoholic be committed in the course of the employment and within the scope of the employee's scope of their employment when the accident occurred. the issue is a question of fact for because the vehicle was rented in garris' name and the company didn't know billups was questions regarding past expense receipts that were reimbursed by carolina forge. one contrary inferences may be drawn, the issue must be sent to the jury. id. see also baker, intoxication or propensity for becoming intoxicated.7 id. he was unable to locate the friend, had difficulty with his automobile, and decided to 35 approximately 21 miles from denison, to spend the remainder of the night with a friend. by a fact-finder. made the trip to joplin with garris in previous years, and as such, requested the business r: the last thing i remember is david telling me he was okay to drive and i agreed and personal portions of business trips. when asked if carolina forge paid for employees' employee was within the scope of employment may be decided by the court. id.23 a: yes. it was turned in with the expense, yes. mr. hershewe: they put us on notice that they want to be repaid for the work[ers'] comp carolina forge moved for summary judgment, which the trial court 19 discovery as they have shown such discovery is relevant to both the respondeat superior entertainment often included taking incurred during the trip. helen mixon, human resource administrator for carolina forge, 21 beverages. ¶20 in oil daily inc. v. faulkner, 282 f.2d 14 (10th cir. 1960), a case decided under the supreme court of the state of oklahoma was a departure wholly disconnected from the company's business which would relieve it entrustment of the motor vehicle."). as such, when an employer provides an employee plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary 28 before granting summary judgment because neither garris nor a representative of billups' with a vehicle, whether the negligent act was done during the course and scope of an "separate ways, rarely speaking with one another."2 trial court's order granting summary judgment is hotel, before visiting the f.a.g. bearings headquarters. next, garris and billups arrived trip to the casino was in the course and scope of garris and billups' employment. judgment and brief in support, ex. a at 34. carolina forge employees, ¶22 in the present case, the record indicates the buffalo run casino was about 30 miles id. ex. b at 47-48. an element of negligent entrustment). see also am. jur. negligence § 319. sheffer v. carolina forge company, l.l.c. garris and billups then took three f.a.g. bearings representatives to lunch at the rib automobile. id. on one particular trip, he left his headquarters in dallas, in his own supplier of the automobile if the supplier knows or has reason to know of such and for gas in the rental car. carolina forge also reimbursed employees for additional out id. ex. a at 42. employer/employee relationship and a settlement in that case, they are not entitled to any defendant carolina forge company's reply to plaintiffs' response to defendant id. at 14. purpose wholly disconnected with his employment.22 vehicle to its employees. 8 12:30? specifically, in determining whether an employee was in the course and scope of 14 see plaintiffs' response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary unless the plaintiffs can first prove garris and billups were acting within the course and reversed; cause remanded for further proceedings attorneys for plaintiffs-appellants alleging negligence under the doctrines of respondeat superior and negligent q: (by mr. hershewe) do you see that? garris' statement to carolina forge's workers' compensation carrier indicates he q: then there's a fox sports bar, detroit metro, a large bud draft and side-shot--no side- defendant carolina forge company l.l.c.'s motion for summary judgment and brief ¶15 carolina forge argues it cannot be liable for negligent entrustment because it did not ms. mixon was specifically asked: "as a matter of fact, there was never any prohibition support, ex. b at 65-66. ms. mixon's deposition also indicates garris and billups had favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable person could conclude that carolina forge knew carolina forge company, l.l.c., defendant-appellee. sleep in his car until morning. id. he then resumed his trip to dallas; however, just prior after the depositions of mr. casella and ms. nixon. at the time plaintiffs' response to intoxication and the "propensity for becoming intoxicated" can result in liability for the v. workers' compensation policy. at the hearing on summary judgment plaintiffs' counsel had no written corporate procedure, guideline, policy, or protocol as to what expenses you . . you paid for that credit card or cash? ¶18 "to hold an employer responsible for the tort of an employee, the tortious act must ms. mixon's deposition also indicates a toxicology report was done on billups after the judgment and brief in support at 15. the jury. summary judgment was improper.36 indicates the men paid for the hotel and then were reimbursed by carolina forge upon she answered, "[t]here was no written policy."17 23 ¶21 the eastern district of oklahoma found the employer, oil daily, liable under the of the record, we find reasonable minds could differ on the questions of whether claimed on the employee's expense report.32 responses. in their brief, plaintiffs stated to the trial court: "plaintiffs therefore return. plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary customer out or customer representatives out for cocktails, for example? on [garris] eating and drinking and then getting in a rental car and driving, was there?" the the two drinks at the top, do you know if those are alcoholic beverages? however, the record indicates that while there may have been personal portions of employees of carolina forge were in the course and scope of their employment at the ¶7 billups and garris intended to return to joplin traveling on interstate highway 44. the permanent law reports. until released, it is subject to forge. because the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both the and they now claim a subrogation interest in that case. and if there was not an and billups without any corporate protocol regarding driving a rental car while an employee is acting within the scope of [his] employment if [he] is engaged in the oklahoma uniform jury instruction 6.7-scope of employment. business of [his] [employer] and not reasonably included within the scope of [his] express intoxicated, carolina forge had a duty to take reasonable actions to prevent such risks. the rental car.19 its customers on business trips such as this one.11 a: it was on the expense so it would have been reimbursed. a: i see it, yes. in the trial judge's order granting summary judgment. however, they did not appeal the a: i don't know. id. at 16. sufficient to submit a negligent entrustment question to the jury. nat'l trailer convoy, carolina forge. allowed billups to drive upon leaving the casino. defendant carolina forge company's inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. phelps v. hotel mgmt inc., 1996 ok we note that carolina forge paid a settlement to the estate of david billups under its oklahoma law by the tenth circuit, oil daily's employee was an advertising manager in okay with the company, and the company would have reimbursed it.34 whether the record reveals disputed material facts. cranford v. bartlett, 2001 ok 47, ¶ 3, q: bates stamp 125, again, it's a place called fox something in detroit. it's a large bud 2006, to august 27, 2006, in joplin, missouri. normally, william casella, the corporate 37 arises from the act of entrustment, not the relationship of the parties. casebolt, 829 p.2d guys still have a drink with you? wreck, but the toxicology report is not included in the record. plaintiff's response to causing unreasonable risk of physical harm to the entrustee or others." casebolt v. and four-lane limited access highway extending from tulsa to the oklahoma-missouri a: yes, we have. oklahoma uniform jury instruction 6.12-scope of authority or employment-departure. expense reports and receipts for mr. casella for all trips he made to joplin. plaintiffs id. oil daily paid all expenses, and he was allowed mileage for the use of his personal estate had testified at the time carolina forge moved for summary judgment. plaintiffs id. ex. b at 47. trial court abused its discretion in not allowing the plaintiffs more time to obtain and brief in support, ex. i. 30, 2012) (finding plaintiff was not required to prove an employment relationship 669-70. upon leaving the casino, billups drove the rental car, which was rented in the name of garris' affidavit states he when asked whether the carolina forge put no limitations on where garris and billups could drive the rental car subrogation. any they put us on--on-- reports and receipts for william garris, iii for all trips he made to joplin, missouri prior participate in a golf outing at the invitation of f.a.g. bearings. his employment; and (3) in the course of the employment." pickrell v. motor convoy, 13 id. ex. b at 76 ("q: on the other side, labatt at the thirsty pony in sandusky, this court has determined that evidence of the propensity for becoming intoxicated is mr. casella testified that the trip to joplin "was a business trip" to during the business trip to joplin. when asked if carolina forge gave garris and billups gurich, j. of torts § 390). if carolina forge, at the time it paid for the rental car for its employees, from its liability as an employer," relying in part on the fact that oil daily gave its sued carolina forge on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment. the 16 beverages, carolina forge maintained no written corporate procedure, guideline, policy, forge did not negligently entrust the rental car to garris and billups. the issue is a q: okay. at that point in time, when you hooked up at that point in time, did both of you see blagg v. line, 09-cv-0703-cve-fhm, 2012 wl 263034, at *4 (n.d.okla. jan. consumption, this personal injury accident is a foreseeable result and should be decided answered "probably."27 work which has been assigned to [him] by [his] employer, or is doing that which is ever indicated he had been drinking while at the casino. garris' statement to carolina employee discretion to "exercise his own judgment in traveling, in time spent on the road, 2013 ok 48 billups' vehicle collided with 114, ¶¶ 6-7, 925 p.2d 891, 893. all facts and inferences must be viewed in a light most 9 going to drive the car. however, carolina forge maintained no policy on who could drive additional discovery.39 garris made prior trips to joplin, missouri, for the same golf outing as he and billups southwest soliciting business for his employer and acting as a public relations work assigned, or doing that which is customary within the particular trade or business." knew or should have known its employees were likely to drive the rental car while employment at the time of an automobile accident, this court has looked to whether, ouji no. 10.16 states: "an owner [or provider] of a vehicle [or other dangerous a: we would expect dinner: for them to take them out to dinner. i mean, that's what we argue in their brief to this court that the reports and receipts for garris and casella for the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident and whether carolina forge were in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the employee is engaged. trial court granted summary judgment to carolina forge, finding as a matter of law that ¶12 negligent entrustment of an automobile occurs when the automobile is supplied, id. employee's employment is not relevant to the negligent entrustment analysis.21 ¶23 the record also indicates the business trip for carolina forge was the only reason the id. ex. a at 52. q: that would have been paid for? business trips to decide how to spend their time. carolina forge provided blanket id. ex. a at 18-19. mr. hershewe: that's evidence because we've got a claim against buffalo run, your question for the trier of fact."). should be denied, if from the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different carolina forge, filing a petition in error on february 18, 2011. this court retained the business trips through its limitless reimbursement policy.13 plaintiffs also asserted a claim for negligent hiring and training, which was disposed of 33 or had reason to know that its employees had the propensity to become intoxicated on respectfully request that carolina forge's motion be denied at this time so that plaintiffs 1962 ok 181, ¶ 10, 375 p.2d at 928. or implied [employment]. such departure may be of short duration, but during such time such as the "thirsty pony."14 carolina forge was not liable for its employees' actions under a theory of respondeat plaintiffs also learned mr. casella judgment and brief in support, ex. b at 33. according to mr. casella, brief in support at 8. a: it's possible. the [employee] is not acting within the scope of [his] [employment]. ¶31 colbert, c.j., reif, v.c.j., watt, winchester, edmondson, taylor, combs and 53-54. request for production to counsel for carolina forge requesting "business expense representative. id. he was free to arrange his trips and to travel by any means he saw fit. a: yes. for the district court. id. the tenth circuit could not say as a matter of law "that such trip dinner and drinks at the timberline steakhouse and then drove to the casino. id. ex. b at see also carswell v. okla. state university, 1999 ok 102, ¶ 19, 995 p.2d 1118, 1123 departs from [his] [employer's] business by doing an act intended to accomplish an trevor hughes & j. christopher davis, johnson & jones p.c., tulsa, oklahoma, casino was authorized by carolina forge and whether the trip to the casino was included ¶6 according to garris' affidavit, upon arriving at the casino, garris and billups went q: three drinks at the top. if the men had driven to oklahoma to purchase a meal that probably would have been 15 one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the facts, and the issue of whether an whom he knows [or reasonably should know] is asked if there were any company limitations on where they could go on this trip, mr. r: yeah, yeah. superior and did not negligently entrust the rental vehicle to its employees. upon review underlying imposition of negligent entrustment liability on suppliers of chattels is that plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary negligent operation of the automobile by its advertising manager was a question of fact when employees of carolina forge were permitted to include instrumentality] has a duty to use ordinary care to avoid lending it to another person or protocol regarding drinking and driving rental vehicles paid for by carolina forge.16 shot, i guess--and the charge was, for the draft, 5 dollars and 29 cents. with tax, it was 5 a: (no response) work assigned, or if doing that which is proper, necessary and usual to accomplish the time of the accident and whether carolina forge negligently entrusted the rental vehicle 1962 ok 181, ¶ 10, 375 p.2d 922, 928-29; shoemake, 1975 ok 55, ¶ 12, 534 p.2d at in fact, carolina forge encouraged such behavior on all the casino. the buffalo run casino, located in miami, oklahoma, is approximately 30 trip.30 the existence of disputed material facts regarding both the scope of defendants' agency, ¶16 in the same vein, carolina forge argues it did not entrust the vehicle to billups carolina forge company's motion for summary judgment and brief in support, ex. a at ¶9 plaintiffs appealed the trial court's journal entry granting summary judgment to decided: 06/25/2013 r: that was cash out of my pocket. state of oklahoma, involving unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others, with liability for the harm caused believed were or were not authorized by carolina forge during the business trip to joplin. argue these depositions are relevant to determine what activities garris and billups 30 regardless of where they ate and regardless of whether they were entertaining id. ex. b at 35-36. at the time of the accident and carolina forge did not negligently entrust the rental transcript of motion for summary judgment proceedings at 10 (jan. 7, 2011). r. i. & p. ry. co., 1913 ok 7, ¶ 11, 129 p. 834, 838). q: okay, ah, all right. so, you guys left the. . i'm sorry, you said between 12:15 to an employee has acted within the course and scope of employment at any given time is a employees were entertaining customers or were on personal time. a reasonable person of law mandate a de novo standard of review, which affords this court with plenary, 2005 ok 36, ¶ 16, 126 p.3d at 607. this court has long held that the question of whether your quality manager, for alcoholic beverages that they consumed and customers q: thank you. a customer service representative, are they expected to entertain clients? id. ex. a at 22. respondeat superior and negligent entrustment claims, we need not determine whether the company representatives. the following exchange took place during ms. mixon's deposition: ¶28 additionally, plaintiffs argue the trial court should have allowed additional discovery within the course and scope of their employment with carolina forge. the record does 3 1 19 southwestern states. id. at 15. his duties required him to travel throughout the id. cite as: 2013 ok 48, __ p.3d __ passengers.5 22 into their hotel. on the morning of august 25, 2006, another employee of carolina forge showed past reimbursements included alcoholic beverages at lunch, in the airport, in the 36 company, l.l.c. garris was the quality manager for carolina forge, and billups was a 5 carolina, to joplin, missouri, on a business trip for their employer, carolina forge 26 defendant carolina forge company, l.l.c.'s motion for summary judgment and the theory of respondeat superior, one acts within the scope of employment if engaged in answered, "okay. now, i understand. yes, we would pay for their meals and drinks. we 11 ¶24 in fact, carolina forge reimbursed employees for all expenses incurred on business case number: 109199 the court: put us on what? scott v. peterson, 2005 ok 84, ¶ 12, 126 p.3d 1232, 1236. employee behavior on business trips and is relevant for a jury in determining whether the id. ex. a at 24; ex. b at 27. were spending in the casino to gamble and purchase whatever beers you were drinking, id. ex. b at 80-81. parents and next friends, charles sheffer and jennifer sheffer, plaintiffs-appellants, whether an employee has acted within the scope of employment at any given time is a honor. support, ex. b at 29-30. "participated in activities associated with the casino, using [his] own money."3 at 360 ("liability for the negligence of the incompetent driver to whom an automobile is customers out for drinks.12 but on remand plaintiffs should be allowed to conduct additional mr. hershewe: employer/employee. the biggest issue i find in there is, your honor, is q: is that correct? defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary judgment and brief in 25 24 34 from garris and billups' hotel.24 tuffy's inc. v. city of okla. city, 2009 ok 4, ¶ 7, 212 p.3d 1158, 1163. more gurich, jj., concur; 18-wheeler tractor trailer collided with a rental vehicle leased to william garris and not support a determination as a matter of law that the men were not in the course and cleveland. there was a charge for a bud light that was reimbursed; is that correct? customers.35 ¶5 after playing golf, garris and billups went back to their hotel, stopping on the way to negligent entrustment scope of their employment at the time of the accident. liability for negligent entrustment that there was a work[ers'] comp claim that was filed and was settled by carolina forge, plaintiffs' request for additional discovery . . . case. we find reasonable minds could differ on the questions of whether employees of tickets and the rental car were purchased by the company before the men left for the trip.9 consumed? customer service representative. the trip was scheduled to take place from august 24, ¶17 finally, carolina forge argues it cannot be held liable for negligent entrustment the collision also caused injuries to garris and resulted in billups' death. ¶10 an order sustaining summary judgment in favor of a litigant presents solely a legal id. ex. b at 33-35; defendant carolina forge company's reply to plaintiffs' response 21-22. a: i do not know. however, when the degree and extent of the deviation is so uncertain that reasonable plaintiff's response to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary ms. wurth: object to form. said that the employee was stepping aside in some marked or unusual manner for some to defendant carolina forge company's motion for summary judgment and brief in could find these facts relevant in determining whether garris and billups' trip to the carolina forge also gave garris and billups $600.00 cash to pay for expenses comm'rs of cnty. of cleveland, 2010 ok 5, ¶ 22, 237 p.3d 134, 142. in selecting hotels or other living quarters, and when he should return to his headquarter." q: then it appears in the middle there's a carolina varsity. it says one premium 22 ounce. do you know if that's alcohol? men would have been reimbursed had they purchased gasoline in oklahoma, mr. casella affirmed, finding that whether, under oklahoma law, the employee's actions constituted a judgment was improper. aramark servs., inc., 2004 ok 38, ¶ 4, 92 p.3d 96, 97. car along with a company history of encouragement and payment for alcohol in support, ex. a. carolina forge also reserved hotel rooms for the men in advance of the trip. the record one has a duty not to supply a chattel to another who is likely to misuse it in a manner a trial court's refusal to allow additional discovery is reviewed for abuse of discretion. independent purpose of [his] own or for some other purpose which is unrelated to the met garris and billups at a bob evans restaurant in joplin, which was adjacent to their ("except in cases where only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn, the question of defendant-appellee carolina forge company, l.l.c. or is doing that which is customary within the particular trade or business in which the men were in joplin.28 ¶0 charles sheffer, jennifer sheffer, and their minor son, j.s., were injured when their question of fact for the jury. summary judgment was improper. believed there were personal portions of the trip and the trip to the casino was a personal a: i see it. 38 revision or withdrawal. driven by david billups, both employees of carolina forge company, l.l.c. plaintiffs control at the time the automobile is supplied--the initial moment of entrustment-- intoxicated.18 q: when you get ready to leave to go to the car, who's driving?


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise