English v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 28 March 1952 |
| Parties | ENGLISH v. STEVENS et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Manier, Crouch, Manier & White, Nashville, Henderson & Henderson, Franklin, for plaintiff in error.
Courtney & Covington, Franklin, for defendant in error.
Mrs. Polly C. English brought her suit against W. D. Stevens and Marvin B. Stevens to recover damages for personal injuries which she received as a result of a collision between an automobile which she was driving and a truck tractor owned by W. D. Stevens and operated at the time of the collision by Marvin B. Stevens.
Alfred H. English, husband of Mrs. Polly C. English, brought his suit against the same defendants to recover the damages which he sustained as a result of his wife's injuries.
Judgments upon jury verdicts were entered: for Mrs. Polly C. English $10,000; and for Alfred H. English $500. Defendant W. D. Stevens prosecuted an appeal in error to this court to review the judgment against him. Defendant Marvin B. Stevens did not appeal.
Since the judgment in favor of the husband depends upon the judgment in favor of the wife, we shall consider the case in this court as the case of Mrs. Polly C. English against W. D. Stevens.
In substance, plaintiff bases her suit against defendant on these grounds:
1. Marvin B. Stevens was driving a truck tractor as agent of the owner, W. D. Stevens, and with the consent and approval of W. D. Stevens.
2. W. D. Stevens expressly permitted and directed Marvin B. Stevens to use the truck tractor owned by W. D. Stevens, without the trailer attached, as a pleasure vehicle, when W. D. Stevens knew, or should have known, that the truck tractor was a dangerous instrumentality when so used because: (1) the brakes would not properly control the tractor; and (2) Marvin B. Stevens intended to use it with six people crowded into the driver's seat; and he could not safely operate the tractor when thus crowded.
There is no dispute about the determinative facts. The tractor in question was owned by W. D. Stevens. He bought it from the Liddon White Truck Company. It was designed to pull a heavily loaded trailer. It was, also, designed to be operated without the trailer attached. The tractor was equipped with brakes which would control the operation of the tractor with the trailer attached. These brakes would, also, control the operation of the tractor without the trailer attached when the tractor was properly used. The tractor was used constantly without the trailer with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and the operation of the tractor, without the trailer, is a legal operation under the laws of Tennessee.
When not properly operated the tractor would act in a manner as if the brakes were 'grabbing' which would make the tractor 'zig zag' or 'weave and wabble.' The reason for these movements of the tractor was that the brake power was extra strong for the tractor when operated without the trailer.
W. D. Stevens lived in Franklin, Tennessee. His brother, Marvin B. Stevens, lived in Nashville, Tennessee, with his wife and four children. These brothers were not connected with each other in a business way. Marvin B. Stevens had never worked for his brother, W. D. Stevens.
W. D. Stevens spent the night of September 3, 1949, at the home of Marvin B. Stevens. The baby child was at home. The other three children were visiting a relative who lived on a farm about three miles from Nolensville, Tennessee. On Sunday morning, September 4, 1949, W. D. Stevens and Marvin B. Stevens and his wife and baby went to the place of business of W. D. Stevens. Marvin B. Stevens had expected to borrow an automobile from someone to take his wife and baby to a family reunion of one of his wife's relatives near Shelbyville, Tennessee. Not getting the automobile, W. D. Stevens told them to take his tractor for that purpose. So Marvin B. Stevens, his wife, and their baby, started to Shelbyville in this tractor owned by W. D. Stevens.
W. D. Stevens was an experienced truck tractor operator. He had worked in this business for many years. On Saturday, September 3, 1949, W. D. Stevens had checked this tractor completely. It was in excellent condition when he loaned it to his brother. It had no defects. He had regularly operated it with or without the trailer. It was equipped with a brake pressure equalizer of 'foot appliance guide' which caused the brake pressure on each brake axle to be equal.
Marvin B. Stevens was likewise an experienced truck tractor operator. His business was driving a truck similar to the one owned by his brother. He was capable in this line of work and knew how to properly operate the tractor. He had done this sort of work for many years.
When Marvin B. Stevens and his wife started to Shelbyville in this tractor, they decided to go by and pick up the three children who were about three miles from Nolensville. They made this decision after they left W. D. Stevens; so he knew nothing of their plans in this regard. Marvin B. Stevens did pick up the three older children and the six of them were riding in the cab of the tractor when the tractor collided with plaintiff's automobile causing her injuries and damage. The evidence abundantly supports the conclusion that the accident was caused by the negligence of Marvin B. Stevens. At the time of the collision, Marvin B. Stevens was not the agent of W. D. Stevens nor acting for W. D. Stevens in any manner. Marvin B. Stevens was on a mission of his own for the benefit of himself and his family wholly unconnected with any business of his brother, W. D. Stevens.
If W. D. Stevens can be held liable in damage for plaintiff's injuries, it must be on the theory that W. D. Stevens placed this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. Ritter
...City Motor Co., 708 S.W.2d 383, 385 (Tenn.1986); Smith v. Bullington, 499 S.W.2d 649, 660 (Tenn.App.1973); English v. Stephens, 35 Tenn.App. 557, 249 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tenn.App.1952), and Siegrist Bakery Co. v. Smith, 162 Tenn. 253, 36 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Tenn.1931). We perceive no basis in Tenne......
-
English v. Virginia Surety Co.
...there was no agency or other relationship upon which to base vicarious liability, and this Court denied certiorari. English v. Stevens, 35 Tenn.App. 557, 249 S.W.2d 908. On the theory that Marvin B. Stevens was an additional insured within the meaning of the policy of insurance issued by de......
-
Dukes v. McGimsey
...195 Tenn. 573, 260 S.W.2d 880. See also: Nicholson Const. Co. v. Lane (1941) 177 Tenn. 440, 150 S.W.2d 1069; English v. Stevens (1952), 35 Tenn.App. 557, 249 S.W.2d 908. The only proof presented by the plaintiffs that the defendant owner of the automobile, Virginia McGimsey, violated the fo......
-
Holder v. Peggy Ann Wrecker and Repair Service
...Brooks (1938), 173 Tenn. 542, 121 S.W.2d 559; Vaughn v. Millington Motor Co. (1929), 160 Tenn. 197, 22 S.W.2d 226; English v. Stevens (1952), 35 Tenn.App. 557, 249 S.W.2d 908. We find it unnecessary to discuss the above cited cases. There is no proof of bailment and no proof of theft of the......