# Henkelmann v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · May 26, 1942 · 180 Md. 591

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3486517

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul W. Henkelmann, an Infant, Etc. v. . Metropolitan Life Insurance Company William R. Downs v. . Paul W. Henkelmann, an Infant, Etc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** May 26, 1942
- **Citations:** 180 Md. 591; 26 A.2d 418; 1942 Md. LEXIS 183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bond
- **Judges:** Bond, Sloan, Delaplaine, Collins, Forsythe, Marbury
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3486517

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing requirements for employer vicariously liability for employee driving a work vehicle, including employer authorization to use vehicle, acts undertaken within scope of employment, and ability to exercise control of the vehicle’s operation
- noting that in order to be vicariously liable an employer must have “the right to control the servant in [the vehicle’s] operation .... ”
- discussing requirements for employer to be held vicariously liable in automobile context

## Opinion text

BOND, C. J.,
delivered the following dissenting opinion in No. 18:
In my view Downs was merely a servant of the corporation; however, he may have been called an agent.
There being no agreement or direction from the employer restricting the means to be used by him in his work, any usual or suitable means was authorized, and its use was within the scope of Downs’ employment. In that situation his use of an automobile was analogous to a use of his own legs.
The American Law Institute Restatement, Agency, Sec. 239, gives the rule in a comment: “If the master directs a servant to accomplish the result and does not specify the means to be used, the servant is authorized to employ any usual or suitable means.” And an illustration given is: “P employs A a messenger boy, giving no instructions as to means of locomotion. A’s use of his own bicycle in delivering messages is within the scope of employment.”
These considerations lead me to vote for a reversal in the first appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3486517. Public record. Not legal advice.