Connection lost
Server error
CHOREY, TAYLOR & FEIL, P.C. v. CLARK Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 was not vicariously liable for an employee’s car accident because the employee was on an errand for a separate, competing business. The court held this act fell outside the scope of her employment as a matter of law, even though a coworker requested the errand.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the “scope of employment” test for respondeat superior. An employee’s act that benefits a competing entity, even if requested by a coworker, is not in furtherance of the employer’s business and falls outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
CHOREY, TAYLOR & FEIL, P.C. v. CLARK Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Wanda Chatham, an employee of the law firm Chorey, Taylor & Feil, P.C. (Chorey Taylor), caused a car accident injuring Dannice Clark. At the time of the collision, Chatham was driving her personal vehicle on an errand to deliver a check. The check was for telephone service for a new, separate law firm, Vincent Berg, which was being established by attorneys leaving Chorey Taylor. Chatham had already accepted an offer to begin working for Vincent Berg the following month. The errand was requested by a fellow employee at Chorey Taylor. Clark sued Chorey Taylor under the doctrine of respondeat superior, alleging that Chatham was acting within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chorey Taylor, finding no basis for vicarious liability. The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that a jury could infer the errand was connected to Chatham’s employment. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee’s actions at the time of the tort were undertaken to benefit a separate and competing business entity?
No. The employer is not vicariously liable because the employee was not 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 r
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee’s actions at the time of the tort were undertaken to benefit a separate and competing business entity?
Conclusion
This case establishes a firm limit on the scope of employment for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
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 fu
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated 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 deserun
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s tort unless