Hannabass v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 13 June 1935
• Parties: CARDWELL HANNABASS, AN INFANT, WHO SUES, ETC. v. MARY RYAN.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 519

164 Va. 519

CARDWELL HANNABASS, AN INFANT, WHO SUES, ETC. v. MARY RYAN.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wythebille.

June 13, 1935.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Gregory, Browning and Chinn, JJ.

1. AUTOMOBILES — Joint Action against Minor and Father — Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Verdict against Minor — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a minor and his father to recover for injuries sustained when the car in which plaintiff was riding collided with a car driven by the minor and owned by his father, the jury returned a verdict against both defendants.

Held: That as to the minor, the jury were amply and correctly instructed on the law applicable to his case, and their verdict as to him was supported by the evidence.

2. AUTOMOBILES — Purpose of Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act. — The enactment of the Virginia Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act by the legislature was designed under the police power of the State to protect the use of the highways from those who are not qualified to operate motor vehicles, to exercise some measure of control over such operators and generally to regulate, standardize and make uniform, so far as practicable, the granting or withholding of this privilege in furtherance of the safety of the users of the highways of the State.

3. AUTOMOBILES — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930 — Construction. — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930, making any owner of a motor vehicle, knowingly permitting a minor under the age of sixteen who is not permitted under the provisions of the Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act to drive such vehicle, jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damage caused by the latter's negligence in driving such vehicle, while remedial, is in derogation of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed.

4. AUTOMOBILES — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930 — Effect — Recovery Permitted against One Person for Tortious Acts of Another. — Prior to the enactment of section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930, making the owner of a motor vehicle, knowingly permitting a minor under sixteen who is not permitted under the provisions of the Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act to drive such vehicle, jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damage caused by the latter's negligence in driving such vehicle, no right existed either at common law or in Virginia which permitted a recovery against one person for the tortious acts of another unless the latter in some manner participated therein or ratified the act or acts of the tort feasor.

5. AUTOMOBILES — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930 — Presumption that Legislature Acted with Knowledge that Statute Must Be Strictly Interpreted. — It must be presumed that the legislature acted with full knowledge of the strict interpretation that must be placed upon a statute of the nature of section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930, making any owner of a motor vehicle, knowingly permitting a minor under sixteen who is not permitted under the provisions of the Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act to drive such vehicle, jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damage caused by the minor's negligence in driving such vehicle.

6. STATUTES — Intent to Change Common Law Must Be Plainly Manifested. — The common law is not to be considered as altered or changed by statute unless the legislative intent be plainly manifested.

7. AUTOMOBILES — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930 — Application — Deals Solely with Those Not Licensed by the State. — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930, making any owner of a motor vehicle, knowingly permitting a minor under sixteen who is not permitted under the provisions of the Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act to drive such vehicle, jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damage caused by the minor's negligence in driving such vehicle, deals solely with those who are not licensed by the State to operate a motor vehicle upon the streets and highways.

8. STATUTES — Interpretation and Construction — Adoption of Construction Upholding Validity. — Where by one of two interpretations the validity of a statute would be at once open to inquiry, the court will adopt that interpretation which will harmonize the statute with the fundamental law, and especially is this true where no violence is done to the language of the statute and such interpretation satisfies its terms.

9. AUTOMOBILES — Liability of Father for Negligence of Minor Child — Section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930 — City Ordinance as to Age of Operator Inapplicable in Determining Father's Liability — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a minor and his father to recover for injuries suffered when the car in which plaintiff was riding collided with the car driven by the minor and owned by his father, liability of the father was predicated solely upon section 2154(190) of the 1932 Supplement to the Code of 1930, enacted in 1932, making any owner of a motor vehicle, knowingly permitting a minor under the age of sixteen who is not permitted under the provisions of the Operators' and Chauffeurs' License Act to operate such vehicle, jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damage caused by the latter's negligence in driving such vehicle. The son was over fourteen but under fifteen and possessed a State operator's permit. The accident occurred in the city of Richmond and plaintiff contended that the minor was not permitted to operate a motor vehicle in the city under the terms of an ordinance, approved in 1931, providing that no permit should be issued to any person under sixteen. The jury returned a verdict against both defendants.

Held: Error. The minor was operating the motor vehicle under a State permit; the city ordinance was not applicable in dealing with the rights and liability of the father, and as to him the judgment should be reversed.

Error to a judgment of the Law and Equity Court, Part Two, of the city of Richmond in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants assign error.

The opinion states the case.

M. J. Fulton and Holmes Hall, for the plaintiffs in error.

Parrish, Butcher & Parrish, for the defendant in error.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Mary Ryan instituted, by notice of motion for judgment against Cardwell Hannabass, an infant fifteen years of age and his father, James W. Hannabass, her action for damages for personal injury resulting from an automobile collision. There was a trial by jury and a verdict was awarded the plaintiff for the sum of $1,500 against both defendants. A judgment was entered upon the verdict and it is now before us for review.

NOTE. — For reasons over which the court had no control the task of preparing this opinion had to be re-assigned and this caused the delay in handing it down.

On June 1, 1933, Cardwell Hannabass who was then just under fifteen but over fourteen years of age, in company with two of his friends was driving his father's car in a southerly direction on Hermitage road in the city of Richmond. The plaintiff, Mary Ryan, was one of the occupants of a car which was owned by her sister, Catherine Ryan, and being driven at the time by the latter in a northerly direction on Hermitage road. General Hill's monument stands at the center of the intersection of Hermitage road and Laburnum avenue. Upon reaching the intersection of these streets Cardwell Hannabass in making a left turn into Laburnum avenue drove his car to the left of Hill's monument instead of proceeding beyond the point of the center of the intersection and thence to the right of the monument. The two cars collided at the northeast corner of the above named streets and as a result the plaintiff was injured.

The defendant in error, who was the plaintiff below, sought to establish sundry acts of negligence in the operation of the car by Cardwell Hannabass but the only ground upon which she relies to fix liability upon James W. Hannabass, the father, is that the latter as owner of the motor vehicle being driven by Cardwell Hannabass "caused or knowingly permitted the said Hannabass, a minor under the age of sixteen years, who was not permitted under the provisions of section 2154(190) Michie's Code of Virginia, 1932 Supplement, to drive such Buick automobile upon a highway of the city of Richmond"; and that "James W. Hannabass gave or furnished the said Buick automobile to the said Cardwell Hannabass, a minor under the age of sixteen years, who was not permitted to operate a motor vehicle on the streets of the city of Richmond under said statute." There were other grounds in the notice of motion upon which the plaintiff, now the defendant in...