piercing corp veil

piercing corp veil - Limited liability Walkovzky v Carlton...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Limited liability Walkovzky v Carlton FACTS Common practice in taxi industry was to vest ownership of fleet in many corps each owning only a couple cabs Defendant was run down by taxi owned by Seon Cab Corp and negligently operated by defendant Marchese. Carlton is stockholder of 10 corps including Seon Each cab in fleet carries only minimum liability insurance req’d by law Corps seem to be operated as single entity RULES: Limits to limited laiability: Courts will pierce corporate veil to prevent fraud or achieve equity. If person uses corp to advance his own rather than corp’s business he will be liable for corp’s acts under respondeat superior ANALYSIS: Doesn’t matter that the underlying cabs are owned by different corps that are controlled by Carlton. Could just as easily be one corp owning them all either way no avenue to personal liability Also not fraudulent for owner to take out only minum liability insurance or have many entities. Sea Land Services inc v Pepper Source
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

piercing corp veil - Limited liability Walkovzky v Carlton...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online