15 N.W. 887 (Mich. 1883), Joslin v. Grand Rapids Ice Co.

Citation:15 N.W. 887, 50 Mich. 516
Opinion Judge:[50 Mich. 518] COOLEY, J.
Party Name:JOSLIN v. GRAND RAPIDS ICE CO.
Attorney:[50 Mich. 518] Kennedy & Thompson, for plaintiff. [50 Mich. 517] Taggart & Earle, for defendant and appellant.
Case Date:June 06, 1883
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 887

15 N.W. 887 (Mich. 1883)

50 Mich. 516

JOSLIN

v.

GRAND RAPIDS ICE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 6, 1883

A master is liable for the negligent driving of a servant, even while the latter is acting temporarily for a third person who has hired a team and its driver from the master; and it is immaterial that the person hiring expressly asked for the services of this particular driver.

In an action brought by a lawyer for a personal injury caused by defendant's negligent driving, the plaintiff's business was not stated and there was only a general allegation of injury. Held, that in the absence of any practice of citing the plaintiff to make his allegations more specific, this was hardly sufficient to warrant the admission of his testimony that the injury prevented his regular attention upon his legal business as before, and of his own sworn estimate as to the value of the time lost to such business.

Error to Kent.

[50 Mich. 518] Kennedy & Thompson, for plaintiff.

[50 Mich. 517] Taggart & Earle, for defendant and appellant.

[50 Mich. 518] COOLEY, J.

The plaintiff is a lawyer, residing at Grand [50 Mich. 519] Rapids, in this state. On the third day of April, 1882, he was driving his horse attached to a buggy in one of the public streets of that city, when he came in collision with a wagon driven by one Scott, and was thrown out of the buggy, receiving personal injuries. The horse and buggy were also injured. Plaintiff claims that the collision was due exclusively to the negligent driving of Scott. It appears that Scott was at the time a servant in the general service of the defendant, and had been regularly in its employment for several months. On the day when the collision occurred, one Collins, who was engaged in contract work on one of the streets, had hired of defendant one of its teams for his own business, as he had repeatedly done before, with the understanding that defendant was to send a driver with the team, and that Collins would pay to the defendant the charge for team and driver. On this occasion Collins had requested that Scott be sent as driver, and he was sent in compliance with that request. It was while Scott was driving the team in the business of Collins that the collision occurred. Plaintiff brings this suit to recover for the injury to himself, his horse, and vehicle, and in the court below has been awarded $600 damages.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP