COURTLESS v. JOLLIFFE Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer financially supported an employee’s truck required for work. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, finding a jury must decide if the employee was acting within the scope of employment when he caused an accident while commuting in that truck.
Legal Significance: This case limits the “going and coming” rule by establishing that substantial employer involvement in an employee’s vehicle can create a jury question on scope of employment, making vicarious liability for a commuting accident possible.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
David Jolliffe, an employee of Princess Beverly Coal Company (“Princess”), struck and severely injured a bicyclist, Bobby Courtless, while driving to work. Jolliffe was driving his personally-owned truck. However, a specific financial arrangement existed between Jolliffe and Princess regarding the vehicle. Princess paid Jolliffe $400 per month, the exact amount of his monthly truck payment. Princess also paid for all maintenance and repair costs and allowed Jolliffe free use of gasoline from the company’s tanks. In exchange for this comprehensive support, Jolliffe was required to use the truck for company purposes at the mine sites on a daily basis. Immediately before the accident, Jolliffe had stopped to purchase new shocks for the truck. Courtless’s guardian sued Princess under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The trial court, applying the “going and coming” rule, granted summary judgment for Princess, finding as a matter of law that Jolliffe was not acting within the scope of his employment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an employer’s substantial financial support for an employee’s personal vehicle, which is required for daily use at work, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee is acting within the scope of employment while commuting?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does an employer’s substantial financial support for an employee’s personal vehicle, which is required for daily use at work, create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee is acting within the scope of employment while commuting?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that the "going and coming" rule is not an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Rule
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia determined that the trial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia de
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s tort during