Buskie v. Januchowsky
| Decision Date | 03 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 15800.,15800. |
| Parties | BUSKIE v. JANUCHOWSKY. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Benj J. Klene, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by George F. Buskie against John Januchowsky. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
S. T. G. Smith, of St. Louis, for appellant. Wilbur O. Schwartz, of St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff's automobile was damaged by being run into from the rear by defendant's automobile driven at the time by defendant's son. Hence this action for damages.
From an adverse judgment defendant brings the case here after taking the usual and conventional steps, asserting that the court nisi should have directed a verdict for the defendant.
While the defendant contends that the evidence shows that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, it will be unnecessary to go into that question in view of the fact that the uncontradicted evidence is to the effect that the defendant's automobile was driven at the time by the defendant's son for the son's pleasure, and not in any wise as the agent for the father or. upon the father's business. The son was an experienced driver. The only evidence in any way connecting the defendant with the accident was that he owned the automobile, which was a pleasure car for the use of the family, and had given his son permission to use it.
Under these facts, it is the settled law of this state that the defendant cannot be held liable in damages for the negligent act of his son in operating the motorcar. Bright v. Thacher, 215 S. W. 788 (St. Louis Court of Appeals); Hays v. Hogan, 273 Mo. 1, 200 S. W. 286, L. R. A. 1918C, 715; Bolman v. Bullene (Sup.) 200 S. W. 1068.
Such being the law, the court should have taken the case from the jury.
The commissioner therefore recommends that the judgment be reversed.
The foregoing opinion of BIGGS, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
The judgment of the circuit court is, accordingly, reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hampe v. Versen
...Drake v. Rowan, 272 S.W. 101; Mount v. Narret, 253 S.W. 966; Norton v. Hines, 245 S.W. 346; Bright v. Thacher, 215 S.W. 788; Buskie v. Januchowsky, 218 S.W. 696; Oster v. Railroad, 256 S.W. 826. (2) The court in giving instruction No. 1 at the request of the plaintiff. (a) Said instruction ......
-
Irwin v. McDougal
...Mayes v. Field, 217 S.W. 589; Bright v. Thacher, 200 Mo.App. 301, 215 S.W. 788; Mast v. Hirsh, 199 Mo.App. 1, 202 S.W. 275; Buskie v. Januckowsky, 218 S.W. 696. 4. was no substantial evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the car and hence the court erred in submitting the case......
- Foy v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
-
Mulanix v. Reeves
... ... Kurz v. Bland, supra ... Following ... this case, the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in the cases of ... Bright v. Thatcher, supra ; Buskie v. Januchowsky ... (Mo. App.), 218 S.W. 696; Curtis v. Harrison, ... supra ; Kilcoyne v. Metz, supra ; and the ... very recent case of Leibman ... ...