Law Question of the Day: Your Opinion | FerrariChat
Buy

Law Question of the Day: Your Opinion

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by dherman76, Apr 15, 2004.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. dherman76

    dherman76 Formula Junior
    Owner

    Feb 25, 2004
    601
    Boston
    Full Name:
    Darren Herman
    #1 dherman76, Apr 15, 2004
    Background: Denise Mauk (Plaintiff) was driving her 1969 Volkswagen shortly after midnight on July 21, 1971, when she was involved in an accident with a 1968 Lincoln Continental drive by Stephen Wright (defendent), a professional football player for the Washington Redskins (defendent). WRight had just picked up a girlfriend to give her a ride from her place of work to her home in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Carlisle was the site fo the Redskins annual training camp, operated from July 10 until Labor Day.

    Wright had spent the day before the accident in football training excercises. After dinner the team members viewed trianing films until midevning. Then they watched the annual College All-Star football game, which began at 9:00PM on July 20. That night the players were given a curfew of 30 minutes after the end of the televised game.

    Wright watched the game at a local "beer joint," then went to a local cocktail lounge where his girlfriend worked. Several minutes after midnight, WRight and his girlfriend left the cocktail lounge and were shortly thereafter involved in the collision.

    Mauk sued the Washington Redskins as well as Wright, seeking compensation for her injuries. In the U.S. District Court (trial court), the defendant Washington Redskins requested that the trial grant a summary judgment in its favor. The Washington Redskins argued that Wright's leisure time activity fell outside the scope of his employment with the Redskins.

    What is your opinion on this case? Does Mauk have the right to sue the Redskins or Wright or both? This is obviously an agency 'type' case...
     
  2. carmaster

    carmaster Karting

    Jan 13, 2004
    62
    Boston/ Portland
    Full Name:
    Paul
    #2 carmaster, Apr 15, 2004
    What were the circumstances of the accident? I don't see how the redskins are being sued since he was one his own time and wasn't working for the redskins at the time of the accident.
     
  3. Il'inglese

    Il'inglese Karting

    Dec 6, 2003
    55
    #3 Il'inglese, Apr 15, 2004
    the fact that he had only a 30 minute curfew at the end day could show that he had in effect a 24 hour workday, and was acting as an employee during his commute back to the training camp.
     
  4. dherman76

    dherman76 Formula Junior
    Owner

    Feb 25, 2004
    601
    Boston
    Full Name:
    Darren Herman
    #4 dherman76, Apr 15, 2004
    All information is provided above...
     
  5. UroTrash

    UroTrash Four Time F1 World Champ
    Consultant Owner

    Jan 20, 2004
    40,362
    Purgatory
    Full Name:
    Clifford Gunboat
    #5 UroTrash, Apr 15, 2004
    Are you kidding! Of course she should sue the Redskins! And the beer makers. And the bar. And the city government. And the car manufacturer......


    This is AMERICA after all...
     
  6. Kevallino

    Kevallino Formula 3

    Feb 10, 2004
    2,257
    Mid-Ohio
    Full Name:
    Kevin
    #6 Kevallino, Apr 15, 2004
    According to your fact set, Wright has broken curfew, so he is arguably at odds with the Redskins vis a vis his contractual obligations to them. Giving his girlfriend a ride home doesn't appear to be for the benefit of the 'Skins so I would submit that there isn't a vicarious liability issue or "agency" issue since the acts by Wright aren't for the benefit of the team.

    The plaintiff would probably argue that he was on company time since he was supposed to be sleeping for the benefit of the team.

    I should think that the plaintiff could sue Wright individually but I'm struggling with the 'Skins as a defendant, but having said that it wouldn't surprise me if he judge didn't grant summary judgment in the 'Skins favor either. At least nowadays. Back in '71 harder to say. Also, why was this in Federal Court?

    Is the correct answer printed upside down at the back of the comic book somewhere?

    Cheers
    Kevin

    Addendum - I have found the case online so am going to post this and THEN go look at the answer. KFH
     
  7. mike

    mike Formula Junior

    Nov 2, 2003
    721
    Colorado
    Full Name:
    Mike
    #7 mike, Apr 15, 2004
    This was clearly outside the scope of his employment
     
  8. dherman76

    dherman76 Formula Junior
    Owner

    Feb 25, 2004
    601
    Boston
    Full Name:
    Darren Herman
    #8 dherman76, Apr 15, 2004
    Looking forward to hearing what the 'case' has to say -
     

Share This Page