Barrett v. Reed

• Decision Date: 08 January 1959
• Citation: 327 S.W.2d 68,46 Tenn.App. 265
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
• Parties: Thomas BARRETT v. Dona REED et al.

Page 68

327 S.W.2d 68

46 Tenn.App. 265

Thomas BARRETT v.Dona REED et al.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

Jan. 8, 1959 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court July 27, 1959.

Bandy & Lyle, Kingsport, for plaintiff in error.

Stacy Grayson, Bristol, for defendants in error.

HOWARD, Judge.

In these consolidated actions the parties will be referred to as they appeared below.

On August 13, 1957, the plaintiff, Dona Reed, a housewife, sustained personal injuries when the automobile she was driving was struck head-on by another automobile owned by the defendant, Thomas Barrett, and driven by his codefendant, Arthur W. Lindamood, age 15, an unlicensed driver.The accident occurred on the Carden Hollow Road just west of Bluff City, Tennessee, at about 11 o'clock A.M.This road, which has a gravel surface, runs east and west, and was described as being approximately 16 feet wide.It was dry and the weather clear at the time.Plaintiff was driving her husband's 1956 Chevrolet 2-door Sedan in an easterly direction toward Bluff City, and the collision occurred on her side of the road, both cars being virtually demolished by the force of the impact.Both plaintiff and her husband, Clarence E. Reed, sued said defendants for damages, the wife suing for personal injuries, and her husband suing for property damages, loss of his wife's services, and medical bills.

In her three count declaration Dona Reed alleges in substance that the owner of the offending car was negligent in permitting an unlicensed and inexperienced minor to drive his automobile, and that said minor was guilty of common law negligence and statutory violations at the time of the collision.

And in a two count declaration Clarence E. Reed alleges that the accident was the result of the negligence of the defendant driver of an automobile 'owned by the defendantThomas Barrett.'

To each of the declarations, the defendants filed pleas of not guilty.

At the conclusion of all the proof the defendant Barrett moved for peremptory instructions in both cases, which motion was overruled, and the trial resulted in jury verdicts in favor of both plaintiffs against both defendants, as follows: For Dona Reed, $2,000, and for her husband, Clarence E. Reed, $2,500.

Motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant Barrett, which was overruled, and this appeal in error was prayed, granted and perfected as to him.

It appears that on the date of the accident the defendant, who is a painter by trade, and his nephew, William Barrett, were painting the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Afton Lindamood, parents of the minor defendantArthur W. Lindamood; that sometime during the morning while Arthur's parents were away from home, he borrowed the defendant's car to go to a nearby store to get some cigarettes; that after returning from the store Arthur was asked by the defendant if he had a license to drive, to which Arthur replied 'No' that he was only 15 years old; that shortly thereafter Arthur went to defendant's car and started playing the radio, when he was told by defendant that he would run the battery down unless the motor was running; that Arthur then requested defendant's permission to drive the car to the barn where he promised to fill the gas tank from his father's gasoline pump, so that he could continue to play the radio; that upon granting this request, the defendant specifically instructed Arthur not to take the car out on the public highway; that after obtaining possession of the car, Arthur did not drive straight to the barn, but instead he drove out over a back road to the Carden Hollow Road where the accident occurred about one-half mile away; that his estimated speed immediately prior to the accident was from 65 to 70 miles per hour, and his wheels skidded approximately 75 feet before the impact; that following the accident the defendant, in the presence of Mrs. Reed, said to Arthur, 'I wouldn't have let you have my car if I had known you would tear it up'; that Arthur's previous driving experience consisted of driving a truck around on the farm, and occasionally driving the family car on the highway when accompanied by an adult.

Defendant admits that his first four assignments of error present but a single issue, namely: Is the owner of an automobile liable in damages for the negligence of an unlicensed and inexperienced driver, a minor 15 years old who, at the time, did not have the owner's permission to drive upon the public highways?

As a general rule, one who lends or entrusts his automobile to a known incompetent or inexperienced driver is liable for damages to persons injured by the negligence of such driver, although the use being made of the vehicle at the time of the injury was beyond the scope of the owner's consent.Nicholson Const. Co. v. Lane, 177 Tenn. 440, 150 S.W.2d 1069;Reid v. Messer, 33 Tenn.App. 255, 231 S.W.2d 400;Rowan v. Sauls, 195 Tenn. 573, 260 S.W.2d 880;60 C.J.S.Motor VehiclesSec. 431, pages 1057 et seq.;5A Am.Jur. Sec. 580, pp. 590 et seq.;Annotation168 A.L.R. 1366.

The applicable rule is stated in the headnote of the annotation in 168 A.L.R. at page 1366, as follows:

'The following later cases support or apply the general rule that the owner of a motor vehicle who places or entrusts the vehicle in the hands of an incompetent or unfit person, thereby enabling the latter to drive it, knowing, or from the circumstances being charged with knowledge, that such driver is incompetent or unfit to drive, may be held liable for an injury negligently inflicted by the use made thereof by that driver as a proximate result of his incompetency or unfitness, although the use being made of the...