Brittingham v. Stadiem

• Citation: 151 N.C. 299,66 S.E. 128
• Parties: BRITTINGHAM. v. STADIEM et al.
• Decision Date: 18 November 1909
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

(151 N.C. 299)
66 S.E. 128

BRITTINGHAM.
v.
STADIEM et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 18, 1909.

[66 S.E. 129]

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Moore, Judge.

Action by J. C. Brittingham against B. Stadiem and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover damages for injuries received by him while on business in the store owned by the female defendant, B. Stadiem, from a pistol shot wound inflicted by the 12 year old son and an employ of the defendants, while carelessly handling the pistol. The defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint, and the matters at issue were presented to the jury in two issues, to wit: (1) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged? (2) What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The jury having responded to the first issue "Yes, " and to the second issue, "$350, " judgment was rendered against the defendants, from which they appealed to this court,

J. A. Barringer, for appellants.

Stern & Stern and Taylor & Scales, for appellee.

MANNING, J. If the feme defendant, Bettie Stadiem, is answerable to the plaintiff for the damages resulting from the tort alleged, then the defendant D. Stadiem, her husband, living with her at the time, is jointly liable. Revisal 1908, § 2105; Roberts v. Lisenbee, 86 N. C. 136, 41 Am. Rep. 450. The tortious act alleged having been committed by Moses Stadiem, the 12 year old son of the defendants, the first question presented Is the liability of the defendants by virtue of this relationship. "Relationship does not alone make a father answerable for the wrongful acts of his minor child. There must be something besides relationship to connect him with such acts before he becomes liable. It must be shown that he approved such acts, or that the child was his servant or agent." Johnson v. Glidden, 74 Am. St. Rep. 795, in the note to which a large number of the decisions of the American courts are collected by Mr. Freeman; Mirich v. Suchy, 74 Kan. 715, 87 Pac. 1141; Chastain v. Johns, 120 Ga. 977, 48 S. E. 343, 66 L. R. A. 958; Evers v. Krouse, 70 N. J. Law, 653, 58 Atl. 181, 66 L. R. A. 592; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. 1057. Wherever the principles of the common law prevail, this is the well-established doctrine. If there were in this case nothing more than the relationship to connect the parent with the wrongful act of his child, we would be constrained to reverse the judgment and hold that defendants were not liable. The complaint, however, proceeds upon a twofold theory, and evidence was produced at the trial...