Dedman v. Dedman

• Decision Date: 12 March 1927
• Citation: 291 S.W. 449,155 Tenn. 241
• Parties: DEDMAN ET AL. v. DEDMAN.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

291 S.W. 449

155 Tenn. 241

DEDMAN ET AL. v. DEDMAN.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 12, 1927

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Suit by Mrs. Elizabeth Fariss Dedman against Mrs. Joseph M. Dedman and another. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and defendants bring certiorari. Affirmed.

GREEN C.J.

Mrs Elizabeth Fariss Dedman, hereafter called plaintiff, sued Mrs. Joseph M. Dedman, hereafter called defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding in an automobile belonging to defendant and operated by a chauffeur in the employ of defendant. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the case has been heard here on certiorari to the latter court.

The parties lived in Columbia, Tenn., about 40 miles from Nashville. The plaintiff is the wife of defendant's son. The defendant had a daughter, Mrs. Henry Moore, also living in Columbia. Shortly before Christmas, 1924, Mrs. Moore had arranged to make a shopping trip to Nashville with some lady friends. It was Mrs. Moore's intention to go to Nashville on the bus and spend the day. The defendant had been ill, and before leaving for Nashville Mrs. Moore called to find out what her mother's condition was, and informed her father who answered the telephone that it was her intention to go to Nashville that day if her mother was well enough for her to leave. Mr. Dedman communicated this information to his wife the defendant, and the latter at once objected to Mrs. Moore and her friends making the trip on the bus. About this time the plaintiff dropped in to ask about defendant, her mother-in-law, and defendant told plaintiff to call up Mrs Moore and say that defendant desired that Mrs. Moore make the trip to Nashville in Mrs. Dedman's automobile. Defendant also suggested that it would be a good opportunity for plaintiff to go to Nashville and do Christmas shopping, and suggested that plaintiff join the party. All the ladies agreed to this arrangement, and the defendant directed her chauffeur to get out her car and take the party to Nashville.

Mrs. Moore asked two other ladies in Columbia to make the trip, and they accepted the invitation. The party then started out in defendant's large closed car. The chauffeur and the plaintiff sat on the front seat. The other three ladies sat on the rear seat. They proceeded about 18 miles along the highway toward Nashville, when in passing through the village of Thompson Station the Dedman car collided with another car at a road crossing and plaintiff received the injuries for which she sues.

According to the plaintiff's proof, the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant's chauffeur in operating the automobile at an unlawful rate of speed, and the verdict of the jury has established the truth of this theory.

The defendant moved for a directed verdict below, and it was urged in the Court of Appeals and is urged here that this motion should have been sustained. The defendant insists that she had loaned her automobile to her daughter to be used on this occasion on the daughter's personal mission; that while the chauffeur was in defendant's general employ, he had for this trip been loaned to the daughter and was the servant of the daughter in this particular transaction; that defendant was not in control of the automobile or of the chauffeur at the time of the accident; and that defendant was, therefore, free from liability in this suit.

The contention of the plaintiff was that neither the automobile nor the chauffeur had been loaned to Mrs. Moore or to herself, but that the automobile was being operated under the direction and control of the defendant, in charge of her servant, and that the plaintiff and the other ladies were riding in the automobile as guests of the defendant; that defendant had undertaken to send her car to Nashville, in control of her chauffeur, by way of furnishing convenient transportation and pleasure to her daughter and to her daughter-in-law; and that the car was employed at this time on defendant's own undertaking as aforesaid and was being operated under defendant's direction by her servant.

The negligence of the chauffeur was responsible for this accident. The liability for the accident is to be determined by ascertaining whose servant the chauffeur was at the time thereof. The trial judge submitted this question to the jury, and we think he was right.

While it is true that Mrs. Moore or perhaps the plaintiff, while on this journey, might have directed the chauffeur to stop at this place or that place and have otherwise controlled the details of the journey, it may very well be doubted whether they had full control of the chauffer for the time being-- whether they could have ordered him out of the car and put another in charge of the car for the trip, or whether they could have used the services of the chauffeur for any other purpose, or have changed the route.

We went over this subject in Chamberlain v. Lee, 148 Tenn. 637, 215 S.W. 415, and there said:

"In order to escape responsibility for the negligence of his servant on the theory that the servant has been loaned, the original master must resign full control of the servant for the time being. It is not sufficient that the servant is partially under the control of a

...