Dortman v. Lester
| Decision Date | 28 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,652,Nos. 423,s. 423,2 |
| Citation | 143 N.W.2d 130,3 Mich.App. 600 |
| Parties | Frances A. DORTMAN and Ralph Dortman, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. Harger H. LESTER, Defendant-Appellee, and Barre E. Lester and Lucille Lester, Defendants. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Peter E. Bradt, Port Huron, for appellants.
Gerald E. Mugan, Schlee, McIntosh, Simpson, Oppliger & Mugan, Port Huron, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and T. G. KAVANAGH and QUINN, JJ.
Appeal is taken by plaintiffs from summary judgments granted in favor of defendant Harger H. Lester in each of two cases which were consolidated herein for purposes of hearing and decision on the merits.
The actions arose out of a collision which occurred on October 13, 1961, when the motor vehicle of defendants Barre E. Lester and Lucille Lester, his mother, ran into the rear of a motor vehicle occupied by plaintiff Frances A. Dortman, the wife of plaintiff Ralph Dortman.
The complaint in each case alleged that Harger H. Lester and Lucille Lester were the parents of Barre E. Lester, age 18 years and 7 months, who was subject to their orders, direction and parental control at the time of the accident. The complaints also alleged that for some time prior to the collision of October 13, 1961, Harger Lester had permitted Barre E. Lester to operate said motor vehicle upon the public highway, although said parents knew or in the exercise of due care should have known that Barre E. Lester was an incompetent, inexperienced, unsafe, careless and reckless driver, and as a motor vehicle operator was likely to speed, drive recklessly and cause injury to others.
The complaints for purposes of this appeal adequately stated a cause of action as to Barre E. and Lucille Lester.
Pursuant to leave granted, each complaint was amended to allege that Barre E. Lester was living at home with his parents at the time of the collision and, alternatively, that the motor vehicle was a family car owned and used for the benefit of all defendants, and that at the time complained of the minor was operating it as the agent of his parents.
In both cases a motion for summary judgment in favor of Harger H. Lester was filed on the ground that he did not own the motor vehicle; that in driving it his son was not acting as his agent; that he did not negligently entrust the vehicle to his son; and that at the time of the collision he was not in the Lester vehicle. This motion was supported by the affidavit of Harger H. Lester.
The issue before this Court is whether a parent of an 18 year old minor living at home and known to the parent to be a reckless and incompetent driver, is negligent in allowing the child to own and operate a motor vehicle upon the public highway.
Under the law of this State a minor child is allowed to have ownership of a motor vehicle. As stated in Parks v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (1946), 315 Mich. 38, 44, 23 N.W.2d 196, 198:
'A minor may own an automobile; and if he is of sufficient age and judgment he not only has the legal ability to control its use and operation, but he is legally chargeable with that responsibility.' (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Semmens v. Floyd Rice Ford, Inc. (1965), 1 Mich.App. 395, 401, 136 N.W.2d 704.
Further, under the statutes of this state, a minor over 18 years of age is allowed to have an operator's license allowing him to drive upon the public streets and highways of this state, and there is no requirement for prior parental consent as a condition to issuance of same. See C.L.S.1961, § 257.308 (Stat.Ann.1960 Rev. § 9.2008).
The fact that a minor of 18 years may have an operator's license, without parental consent, makes the case at bar stronger for the defendant than Shaler v. Reynolds (1960), 360 Mich. 688, 104 N.W.2d 779. In Shaler 16 year old minor injured the plaintiff in a car owned and driven by the minor. As to the mother of the minor who signed the application for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Puzzuoli v. Puzzuoli, 720
-
Dortman v. Lester
...the actions against defendant father for failure to state causes of action against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 3 Mich.App. 600, 143 N.W.2d 130. Following the Court of Appeals' decision in this case, this Court decided Muma v. Brown (1967), 378 Mich. 637, 148 N.W.2d 760. We divided e......