Carrier v. Donovan

• Decision Date: 05 March 1914
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CARRIER v. DONOVAN.

89 A. 894

88 Conn. 37

CARRIER

v. DONOVAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 5, 1914.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Howard J. Curtis, Judge.

Action by Robert L. Carrier against Mary Donovan for damages for personal injuries caused by the negligent operation of defendant's automobile. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $3,500, and from an order refusing to set aside the verdict, and denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Herbert Knox Smith and Edward T. Canfield, both of Hartford, for appellant Gustaf B. Carlson and Charles W. Cramer, both of Middletown, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. This action was brought to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff from a collision between the defendant's automobile and a wagon in which the plaintiff was riding. After the jury had rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The denial of this motion is the only error assigned in the appeal.

The only question presented by the appeal is whether or not the defendant is liable for the negligent operation of the car at the time of the accident The automobile which injured the plaintiff belonged to the defendant. It was used by the defendant and her daughter, Olive Donovan, about 18 years of age, a member of the defendant's family, for their pleasure and convenience. When the plaintiff was injured the vehicle was being operated by one Howard Garforth, the regular chauffeur of the defendant. At this time Garforth had been so employed between two and three weeks. Garforth had driven the car about every week day during such employment, sometimes with Miss Olive and Mrs. Donovan, and sometimes with Miss Olive without Mrs. Donovan. About two o'clock in the afternoon on the day when the collision occurred Olive and two other young ladies went to Southington, with Garforth operating the car. Mrs. Donovan, before the party started for Southington, requested Garforth to be home again before dark. She did not see any one of the party again until after the accident. The party returned from Southington and reached Mrs. Donovan's place in Middletown about 6 o'clock. Mrs. Donovan, at this time, was visiting friends in South Farms, about 2 miles from her house. Olive's cousin, who had been one of the party on the ride to Southington, lived in South Farms. Garforth's home was about 1 1/4 miles from the Donovan house. Garforth was allowed to go home for his meals. After returning from Southington, Garforth took the car for the purpose of going to his home for his supper. After supper he started back with the car over the most direct route to the Donovan house, and when he was about half way back the accident happened.

In addition to the above facts which were conceded, the plaintiff offered evidence to show and claimed to have shown the following: That Olive had acted as the agent of her mother, Mrs. Donovan, in hiring Garforth. Upon some occasions he had been directed as to the management of the car by Mrs. Donovan; but generally it was her custom to give her directions as to its use through Olive. That Mrs. Donovan had instructed Garforth to take his orders as to the use of the car from Olive in the absence of direct orders given by the defendant. On the return to the Donovan house from Southington on the evening in question Olive directed Garforth to take the car to his own home and get his supper, and then report with the car at the Donovan house. On several occasions prior to this time Garforth had received similar directions, sometimes from Mrs. Donovan, and at other times from Olive. Shortly after the accident the defendant stated that she always gave Garforth permission to take the machine home to get his supper.

The defendant offered evidence to discredit the testimony on behalf of the plaintiff that Olive, the daughter, gave Garforth directions to take the car home to get his supper, and to report at the Donovan house on his return. The defendant also offered evidence to disprove and claimed to have disproved the plaintiff's claim that Olive had acted as...