Archie v. Hudson-Essex Co.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5656, 5657.,s. 5656, 5657. |
| Citation | 120 A. 162 |
| Parties | ARCHIE v. HUDSON-ESSEX CO. (two cases). |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Washington County; Hugh B. Baker, Judge.
Two actions, one by Addison S. Archie, the other by Leah C. Archie, both against the Hudson-Essex Company. Defendant's motions for directed verdicts were denied, and it brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
John Ferguson, Jr., of Westerly, for plaintiffs.
Ralph T. Barnefield, of Providence, for defendant.
These are actions of trespass on the case for negligence arising out of the same accident, the one being brought to recover damages to an automobile, and the other damages for personal injuries.
The collision between the two automobiles occurred in the town of Westerly, R. I., and on the highway between the village of Westerly and Watch Hill. At the time of the accident the automobile of the defendant was being driven by one Franklin O. Barber, who was accompanied by his wife and children. The other automobile was being driven by the plaintiff Addison S. Archie, his wife being with him.
These two cases were tried together in the superior court before a justice of that court sitting with a jury. At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved, in each action, that a verdict be directed, upon the ground that it appeared from the testimony that the said Barber at the time of the accident was not using the automobile as the servant or agent of the defendant, but for his own convenience and purposes These motions were denied, and the defendant duly excepted. It is upon this one exception in each action that the cases are now before us. The jury returned a verdict in each case for the plaintiff. In neither action did the defendant file a motion for a new trial, but came to this court upon its exceptions.
It appears from the testimony that Barber was the secretary, treasurer, and general manager of the defendant company, whose business was the sale of automobiles, and that he was engaged from time to time in making" such sales. The place of business of the defendant company was at New London, Conn. Barber's home was in the village of Westerly, R. I., and he also had a summer cottage at Watch Hill. Barber had the right, by permission of the defendant, to use one of its automobiles either for its business or for his private purposes, as he might see fit There was no restriction upon him in that regard. In fact, he used one of defendant's automobiles to drive from his home in the village of Westerly to the defendant's place of business in New London, and also in returning to Westerly.
On the day of the accident, April 16, 1921, before starting for New London, he had driven his wife and two children from his home in the village of Westerly to his cottage at Watch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Quick
... ... Hopkins, 11 A. 178, 95 Conn. 239; ... Hannis v. Driver, 68 Pa. S.Ct. 548; Lee v ... Nathan, 226 P. 970, 67 Cal.App. 11; Archie v ... Hudson-Essex Co., 120 A. 162, 45 R. I. 109 ... The ... general rule is that a servant in charge of his master's ... automobile, ... ...
-
Ritter v. Hicks
... ... There is no material ... difference between this case, as to the liability of H. W., ... and the case of Archie v. Hudson-Essex Co., 45 R.I ... 109, 120 A. 162: ... "Liability ... of a company engaged in selling automobiles for negligent ... ...
-
Wilson v. Steel Tank & Pipe Co. of Oregon
... ... 236, 164 N.E. 77, 60 A.L.R. 1159; ... Slater v. Advance Thresher Co., 97 Minn. 305, 107 ... N.W. 133, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 598; Archie v. Hudson-Essex ... Co., 45 R.I. 109, 120 A. 162 ... We are ... in accord with this statement ... [152 ... ...
-
Callahan v. Weybosset Pure Food Mkt.
...evidence to warrant the jury in finding that Brady at the time of the accident was engaged upon defendant's business. Archie v. Hudson-Essex Co., 45 R. I. 109, 120 A. 162. The trial court, deeming the present case distinguishable, denied the motion, and our question is whether there was any......