45 P.2d 852 (Kan. 1935), 32328, Priestly v. Skourup
|Citation:||45 P.2d 852, 142 Kan. 127|
|Opinion Judge:||HUTCHISON, Justice.|
|Party Name:||PRIESTLY v. SKOURUP et al.|
|Attorney:||Ray Bond, of Joplin, Mo., and C. O. Pingry and Carl Pingry, both of Pittsburg, for appellants. P. E. Nulton and R. L. Letton, both of Pittsburg, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 08, 1935|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Kansas|
Syllabus by the Court.
Automobile in proper repair for use on highways is not inherently dangerous instrumentality or agency so as to render owner liable for injuries inflicted by automobile when being operated by another.
Owner lending automobile to one whom owner knows to be incompetent, careless, and reckless driver, or had reasonable cause to believe him to be such, is guilty of negligence rendering owner liable to third party injured by driver's negligent operation of automobile (Rev. St. 1923, 8--121).
1. An automobile in proper repair for use upon well-traveled streets and highways is not inherently a dangerous instrumentality or agency.
2. The owner of an automobile who lends it to one whom he knows to be an incompetent, careless, and reckless driver, or had reasonable cause to know or believe him to be such, is guilty of negligence in permitting such party to use, drive, or operate the automobile along and upon the well-traveled public streets of a city, and is liable to third parties who may be injured by such driver in the negligent operation of such automobile.
Appeal from District Court, Crawford County; Leland M. Resler, Judge.
Action by F. M. Priestly against N. Harold Skourup and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff who was struck by an automobile while crossing a street as a pedestrian. The two defendants are father and son. The former is sued as owner of the car, and the latter as the driver thereof. The trial court overruled the motion to strike out certain allegations, and later overruled the demurrer to the petition, from which rulings the defendants appeal.
The only portion of the petition that is involved in this appeal is that which the defendants moved to strike out, and later the demurrer to the petition had reference only to the insufficiency of this same portion. The allegations in other parts of the petition with reference to the relation between the defendants as principal and agent or master and servant need not be considered. The motion to strike out applied to the following part of the petition: "That at the time the said defendant, N. Harold Skourup, struck the plaintiff as hereinbefore set out, the said Chevrolet
automobile which the said defendant, N. Harold Skourup, was then and there driving was the property of and belonged to the defendant, N. H. Skourup. That at the time the plaintiff received the injuries and damage complained of and for a long time prior thereto, the exact length of time the plaintiff is unable to state, the said defendant, N. Harold Skourup, was an incompetent, careless and reckless automobile driver, and that the said defendant, N. H. Skourup, knew, or had reasonable cause to know, that said defendant, N. Harold Skourup, was an incompetent, careless and reckless automobile driver, and allowed and permitted the said defendant, N. Harold Skourup, to use, drive and operate said automobile belonging to the defendant, N. H. Skourup, along the public streets of said city, and at...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP