Fullerton v. Motor Exp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1953
• Citation: 375 Pa. 173,100 A.2d 73
• Parties: FULLERTON v. MOTOR EXPRESS Inc., et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

100 A.2d 73

375 Pa. 173

FULLERTON v. MOTOR EXPRESS Inc., et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 9, 1953

In suit by owner whose tractor-trailer was seriously damaged through alleged negligent operation of truck-tractor by corporation's driver who at time of accident was returning from self-assumed luncheon trip. The Court of Common Pleas of Erie County at No. 494, September term, 1951 Burton R. Laub, J., entered judgment against corporation and its employee, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, No 230, March term, 1953, Musmanno, J., held that where there was evidence that truck-tractor carried name of corporation and that dispatcher of corporation had instructed driver of truck-tractor to pick up a trailer upon returning from lunch and employment of driver by corporation was admitted question of ownership and mission of corporation's truck-tractor at time of accident was for jury.

Affirmed.

A. Grant Walker and Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, Erie, for appellant.

English, Gilson, Baker & Bowler and John A. Bowler, Erie, for appellee.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, and ARNOLD, JJ.

MUSMANNO, Justice.

On July 22, 1949, a tractor-trailer belonging to the plaintiff Robert Fullerton was seriously damaged through the negligent operation of a truck-tractor by the defendant James Green, employee of the codefendant Motor Express, Inc. In the ensuing lawsuit, the City of Erie was brought in as an additional defendant but the city was exonerated at the trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff against James Green and Motor Express, Inc., in the sum of $5,935.97. The defendant Motor Express, Inc. (hereinafter called Motor Express) filed motions for judgment n. o. v. and new trial, which were denied by the lower Court. This appeal followed.

It is the contention of Motor Express that it is without legal responsibility for the plaintiff's losses because at the time the accident occurred, James Green was returning from a self-assumed luncheon trip and no evidence was adduced to establish that the company had any control over James Green at the time. The truck-tractor carried the name of Motor Express, and the trial Judge permitted the jury to infer from the markings or signs that the vehicle belonged to the defendant company and that it was being operated in the course of the company's business. This inference the Motor Express regards as error.

The law is clear that an identifying sign on a vehicle declares its reputed ownership as much as a flag proclaims the nationality of the ship which flies it. If the ship is sailing under false colors it will have to answer for the deception. If a name on a vehicle mis-states ownership, opportunity is afforded the named person or firm to disprove the asserted proprietorship.

In Sefton v. Valley Dairy Co., 345 Pa. 324, 326, 28 A.2d 313, 314, we said:

‘ It is well settled by our previous decisions that the presence of a defendant's name on a commercial vehicle raises a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle is owned by defendant and that the driver of the vehicle is a servant of defendant acting within the scope of his employment * * *. This presumption is sufficient to take the case to the jury even though defendant produces uncontradicted evidence that the driver was not its employee (Holzheimer v. Lit Bros., supra [262 Pa. 150, 105 A. 73]) or produces evidence that it did not own the vehicle in question.’

The most elementary rules of logic, woven into the fabric of correlative social responsibility, as well as the requirements of simple justice, demand that the law be as above indicated. The person who is struck down by a strange vehicle cannot automatically know the business of the owner of the vehicle; and, even with the most diligent inquiry, he may not be able to ascertain the nature of the mission to which the driver was committed at the time. Hence the imperative necessity of the presumption in a situation of this kind that the first person or firm to be called to answer for the mishap should be the person or firm whose name decorates the offending vehicle.

Any business organization...