Neubrand v. Kraft

• Decision Date: 16 March 1915
• Docket Number: No. 30103.,30103.
• Citation: 169 Iowa 444,151 N.W. 455
• Parties: NEUBRAND v. KRAFT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

169 Iowa 444

151 N.W. 455

NEUBRAND

v.KRAFT ET AL.

No. 30103.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 16, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Monona County; J. F. Oliver, Judge.

Opinion states the case. Affirmed.

J. A. Pritchard, of Onawa, for appellant.

M. W. Newby, of Onawa, for appellees.

WEAVER, J.

The petition alleges that the defendants Leitzen are owners of a garage in the town of Mapleton, where they keep automobiles for sale and hire and hold themselves out to the public as being engaged in that business; that in pursuit of such business and occupation they let for hire to the defendant Kraft a Ford automobile, knowing at the time that Kraft would himself run and operate the car, and was intending to drive it to the town of Ute, where there was to be a large gathering of people attendinga carnival of sports. It further alleges that the Leitzens well knew that an automobile driven by an unskilled driver, or by one not familiar with a car of that pattern, was a dangerous machine to be driven among crowds; that said defendants were informed that Kraft had no knowledge of the mechanism of a Ford car, and in fact has never driven one, yet, knowing these facts and the danger attending his use of said car, they carelessly and negligently let the car to said Kraft for the purposes above mentioned. It is further alleged that plaintiff was a spectator, with others at the carnival in Ute, and in the exercise of reasonable care on his part he was struck and severely injured by said Ford car being then and there operated by said Kraft without due skill and care, as he was being permitted to do through the negligence of the defendants Leitzen. For the injury thus sustained he demands judgment for the recovery of damages from all the defendants. The defendants admit the keeping of a garage by the Leitzens; that they let a Ford automobile to Kraft, and knew that he intended to use it in taking his family to the carnival at Ute. They admit, also, that plaintiff was injured by a wire, which was accidentally struck by said car while being operated by Kraft, but they each and all deny any negligence on their part with respect to the use of said car or to the injury suffered by plaintiff. The evidence, so far as material to the appeal, tends to show that Kraft was accustomed to operate automobiles, but had no previous experience with a Ford car. At the time he hired this car one of the defendants got into the car with Kraft and backed the car out of the garage and gave him some instruction or direction as to its use. Kraft then drove the car to the vicinity of another garage or shop, where he was further instructed as to the manner of operating a Ford. He then drove to Ute, and while there, operating it in a manner which a jury might properly find to have been negligent, caused the injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff having made this showing and rested his case, the court sustained the motion of the defendants Leitzen for a directed verdict in their favor. The plaintiff appeals.

[1] 1. In argument for appellant counsel contends that one who lets an automobile for hire is responsible for the proper skill and care of the person to whom he intrusts it. In support of this position we are cited to certain English cases where the owner of a cab is held liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of the driver. But such cases are parallel neither in fact nor in principle with the one now before us. The proprietor of a car or hack stand lets his carriages supplied with drivers of his own selection and in his own employment. While to a certain extent the driver under such circumstances becomes the servant of the hirer, he does not cease to be the servant and representative of the cabowner so far as the immediate care and management of the carriage and its motive power is concerned, and if by his careless or reckless driving a collision occurs upon the street, and a third person is thereby injured without fault on his own part, the owner is very reasonably and properly held to respond in damages. But the owner of a livery stable or garage making a...