Bilyeu v. Beck
| Decision Date | 19 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 412. |
| Parties | BILYEU v. BECK. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Shaw, Judge.
Action by Joseph Bilyeu against Mrs. Florence Beck. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The liability of a defendant mother for personal injuries caused by the negligent driving of an automobile by her daughter past 21 years of age, depends, not upon ownership of the machine, but upon agency, express or implied; and, in the absence of evidence that the daughter was on any mission or performing any service for defendant, a nonsuit was proper.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injury, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant.
The plaintiff was riding a bicycle along a public road on the 23d of March and was injured by being run over by an automobile driven by the daughter of the defendant, who was over 21 years of age and an experienced driver.
The plaintiff examined the defendant before the trial under section 864 et seq. of the Revisal, and this examination was introduced in evidence on the trial to prove that the defendant was the owner of the car.
The defendant was not in the car at the time of the injury, and there is no evidence that the car was being used on any business or mission of the defendant.
At the conclusion of the evidence, his honor entered judgment of nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
Hoyle & Hoyle, of Sanford, and G. H. Humber and L. B. Clegg, both of Carthage, for appellant.
U. L Spence, of Carthage, for appellee.
The evidence of the negligence of the daughter, who was driving the automobile, is not satisfactory; but conceding that it was sufficient to be submitted to the jury, and also that there is evidence that the defendant was the owner of the automobile, these facts alone would not establish the liability of the defendant for the injuries which the plaintiff has sustained.
This was expressly decided in Linville v. Nissen, 162 N.C. 99, 77 S.E. 1098, where it is said:
"The owner of an automobile is not liable for personal injuries caused by it, merely because of his ownership."
And again:
"Even if the son had been the servant of his father in driving the machine, the father would not be liable for his negligence unless his son was at the time acting in the scope of his employment and in regard to his master's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Thurston Motor Lines
...driver. Among those cases in which this has occurred are these: Linville v. Nissen, supra; Reich v. Cone, 180 N.C. 267, 104 S.E. 530; Bilyeu v. Beck, supra; Freeman v. Dalton, supra; Grier v. Grier, supra; Martin Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Line, supra; Cotton v. Carolina Truck Transportati......
-
Martin v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Line
...194 N.C. 750, 140 S.E. 718; Grier v. Grier, 192 N.C. 760, 135 S.E. 852; Reich v. Cone, 180 N.C. 267, 104 S.E. 530; and Bilyeu v. Beck, 178 N.C. 481, 100 S.E. 891, should be remembered, as pointed out by Marshall, C.J., in U.S. v. Burr, 4 Cranch, 470 (appendix), that "every opinion, to be co......
-
Grier v. Woodside
...be imputed to the father only on some principle of agency or employment. Wilson v. Polk, 175 N.C. 490, 95 S.E. 849; Bilyeu v. Beck, 178 N.C. 481, 100 S.E. 891; Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292, 116 S.E. 742, 743. But with respect to the use of automobiles this principle must be considere......
-
Cotton v. Carolina Truck Transp. Co.
... ... 794, 147 S.E. 296; Ferguson v. Spinning Co., 196 ... N.C. 614, 146 S.E. 597; Grier v. Grier, 192 N.C ... 760, 135 S.E. 852; Bilyeu v. Beck, 178 N.C. 481, 100 ... S.E. 891; Linville v. Nissen, 162 N.C. 95, 77 S.E ... 1096; Daniel v. R. R., 136 N.C. 517, 48 S.E. 816, 67 ... L ... ...