From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 19, 1958
252 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1958)

Summary

noting that although court examined plaintiff's expert at length and in seemingly hostile manner, such examination "may perhaps have been justified by the evident weakness of the plaintiff's case"

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Bombardier, Inc.

Opinion

No. 13289.

February 19, 1958.

Edward J. Utz, Marvin Kleinman, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellant.

Rendigs, Fry Kiely, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.


This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment holding that a liability insurance policy issued to Earl Schott, Inc., did not obligate the insurer with respect to claims against Norman Stephen, Sr., or Norman Stephen, Jr., growing out of a collision on June 12, 1955, in which an automobile was involved which the latter was driving. The judgment was rendered upon stipulated facts.

Earl Schott, Inc., was an automobile dealer, and at the time of the collision the Ohio certificate of title to the vehicle in question was in Schott's name. A sale of the car to Norman Stephen, Sr., had been negotiated, however, and Schott had delivered possession of it to him. Stephen had made a small down-payment toward the purchase price, and arrangements had been made for extension of credit on the balance. Stephen had signed a note and chattel mortgage.

We perceive no error in the judgment of the district court. It appears that under Ohio law "ownership" of the automobile was in Earl Schott, Inc. Garlick v. McFarland, 1953, 159 Ohio St. 539, 113 N.E.2d 92; Mielke v. Leeberson, 1948, 150 Ohio St. 528, 83 N.E.2d 209, 7 A.L.R. 2d 1342; cf. Workman v. Republic Mut. Ins. Co., 1944, 144 Ohio St. 37, 56 N.E.2d 190. It is clear, however, that at the time of the collision Norman Stephen, Jr., was not operating the automobile "in connection with" the business purpose of Earl Schott, Inc. The automobile dealer had not given Norman Stephen, Sr., possession of the car for the purpose of trying to sell it to him. The sale had already been fully agreed upon and all of its terms settled.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Feb 19, 1958
252 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1958)

noting that although court examined plaintiff's expert at length and in seemingly hostile manner, such examination "may perhaps have been justified by the evident weakness of the plaintiff's case"

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Bombardier, Inc.
Case details for

Kane v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Lorene E. KANE, Administratrix of the Estate of Edward J. Kane, Deceased…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Feb 19, 1958

Citations

252 F.2d 48 (6th Cir. 1958)

Citing Cases

Richardson v. Bombardier, Inc.

To the extent the questions (and answers thereto) exposed weaknesses in Plaintiffs' case, then so be it. It…

Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Shelby Mutual Ins.

Brown v. Kennedy, 141 Ohio St. 457, 48 N.E.2d 857 (1943). The only case in which the facts are, in their…