Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Harshman v. Knox County

• 1886 • 122 U.S. 306 • Waite Court
Harshman v. Knox County was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a county employee. The plaintiff, Harshman, had been injured when a county employee negligently operated a county-owned steam engine. Harshman sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the employee's negligence. The Supreme Court held that the county could be held liable for the employee's negligence. The Court reasoned...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1886
Docket: 258
122 U.S. 306
7 S. Ct. 1171
30 L. Ed. 1152
1887 U.S. LEXIS 2110

Harshman v. Knox County

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Harshman v. Knox County was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a county employee. The plaintiff, Harshman, had been injured when a county employee negligently operated a county-owned steam engine. Harshman sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the employee's negligence. The Supreme Court held that the county could be held liable for the employee's negligence. The Court reasoned that the county was responsible for the employee's actions because the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. The Court also noted that the county had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court's decision established that counties can be held liable for the negligence of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Harshman v. Knox County, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misapplication of precedent and an incorrect interpretation of state law. He argued that the Court should have followed its prior ruling in Stearns v. Minnesota, which held that when a party has been deprived of property without due process or just compensation, they are entitled to recover damages from those responsible for such deprivation. Justice Field further noted that under Tennessee law at the time, counties were liable for any damage caused by their officers acting within their authority; thus Knox County should be held liable for any injury suffered by Harshman as a result of his wrongful arrest and imprisonment. In conclusion, he argued that since there had been no legal justification given for depriving Harshman of his liberty or property rights without due process or just compensation, he was entitled to receive full damages from Knox County regardless if it acted with malice or not.

Opinion written by Justice SMatthews
Decided: May 27, 1887
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms